1920-06-29

REMISSION OF FEES ON DIVORCE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HERBERT M. MOWAT (Parkdale), moved:
That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Thirteenth Report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the additional charge levied and paid under Rule 89, Paragraph 3 (c) he remitted in the case of Bill No. 214 (Letter P 5 of the Senate) Intituled: "An Act for the relief of Nelson Alexander Boylen."
Mr. UEM1EUX: Is it customary to remit those charges?
Mr. SPEAKER:: I believe it has been
done in the past repeatedly, and it also has
been done on several occasions during the present session. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



OFFER OF NAVAL SHIPS FROM GREAT BRITAIN.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: Before the Orders of
the Day are called I desire to ask my Right Hon. friend the Prime Minister if we may have laid upon the table of the House before prorogation the correspondence between the Government of Canada and the British Government with regard to the acceptance of certain ships for the Canadian Naval Service. I was informed last night by the Minister of Naval Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ball-antyne) that there was some correspondence which was mostly in the form of cables. I presume it is possible for us to have that correspondence laid on the Table before the House prorogues.


Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: In so far as it is not of a confidential character there is no objection to laying it on the Table. I am not familiar with the matter, but I shall piake inquiries in view of my hon. friend's question.


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Naval Affairs):: If the Prime Minister will allow me,-I informed the leader of the Opposition in the early hours of this morning that the only official communication between the Government of Canada and the British Government was one cable through the proper channels here to the effect that we could not accept all the ships offered but enquiring whether we could get one cruiser and two destroyers. That is the only despatch that has passed between this Government and the Admiralty. If the leader of the Opposition desires to see a copy of that cable I shall be glad to place it on the Table.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be glad to have it tabled.
Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce)': Mt. Speaker, I beg to move that the House return to the order "introduction of Bills."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce), Bill No. 220 (from the Senate) to amend the Boards of Trade Act was read the first and second times.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask whether the final report with regard to the classification of the officials and employees of this House will be laid on the Table before prorogation, as has been promised?


Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council):: I am not sure whether it is yet completed, but I shall make application at once to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission and, if it is, it will be laid on the Table. I understood from the commission that the delay was due to the fact that they could not take up the application of the classification until the House had finally passed upon the organization itself. The organization was a matter for the House to determine, and until that was disposed of the commission could not apply the classifieation to the existing staff. I shall inquire into the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: The House passed upon the classification a few weeks ago.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so, but the commission was not able to take up the matter until after the House had passed upon it. I shall ascertain whether it is now ready.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration, of .amendments made by the Senate to Bill 137 to amend the Criminal Code.
Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. .Speaker, the Senate has
made to this Bill quite a number of amendments, some of them purely verbal, -and some that produce a material effect as modifying certain of the sections as passed by this House. After consideration of the anrendments, however, although they do detract from the full effect which I think this House desired to produce, they do leave us a very material advance in the law on the subjects dealt with, and for that reason I would be disposed to ask the concurrence of the House in them. In regard to the particular provisions I have in mind, we have gained at least half a

loaf in regard to what this House has been able to impress upon the Senate should be the law. I think it is wise to take that and to look to the future for further advances in that regard. The first amendment is merely to correct a description of the court which is to take appeals in the province of Ontario and to substitute for "the Court of Appeal for Ontario," the words "a divisional court of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario." It transpires that that is the correct description according to the provincial statute. The second amendment is to add to the number of authorities who may grant licenses in connection with the possession, or carrying, of firearms to "any person authorized under the law of any province to issue licenses or permits to carry firearms." This amendment "was introduced' at the suggestion of the Government. It has -been represented to us by different provincial authorities that under provincial laws there were persons authorized to issue such licenses, and it seems only proper that their powers to issue permits under this Act should be recognized. Section 4 has been amended. This is the section which makes it an indictable offence for any person over the age of eighteen years to seduce or have illicit connection with any girl of previous chaste character of or above the age of sixteen and under the age of eighteen years. Under that provision an offence would be committed by seducing or having illicit connection with such a female. The amendment is to strike out the words "or has illicit connection with." Under tfie amended section the offence is committed only when seduction takes place; the mere illicit connection is not an offence. Section 5, the section which makes it an offence to have illicit connection with females in the employ of the party committing the offence, has been amended by striking out the word "woman or." As that clause left this House it was an offence to have such connection with any woman or any girl. The Senate seems to have considered that the Act when committed in regard to a woman-by which, I understand, a married female is meant although I cannot give their reasons for that-should not be constituted an offence and they have struck out the words "woman or." Section 6 which would make it an offence for persons not being married to register themselves in a hotel as being man and wife is struck out. Section 9, which makes it an offence to have carnal know-ledge of a girl

under the age of sixteen and above the age of fourt-een has been amended by inserting after the word "girl" the words "of previously chaste character." They have also added to section 9 a subsection, 9a, which provides that:
No person accused of any offence under this subsection shall be convicted upon the evidence of one witness, unless such witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the accused.
The purpose apparently is not to look upon the evidence of the party against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed as sufficient by itself to justify conviction.	*
Immediately after section 9 there has been inserted a section entirely new which deals with an offence not dealt with in the Bill itself. The section, however, I think is absolutely unobjectionable and should meet with our approval. It is to deal with the offence committed by a person who:
"(a) being an officer or employee whose duty it is to collect fares or tolls, wilfully neglects to collect any fare or toll, or wilfully collects less than the proper amount, or accepts any valuable consideration for omitting to collect such fare or toll:
The application of this provision, I think, would probably be to collectors upon railways. The suggestion for such legislation came from the railway employees who find that at present they are being prosecuted under the Secret Commissions Act for offences of this kind with the result that they are liable to be proceeded against summarily and that their opportunities for appeal are exceedingly limited. It was represented that for men in that position such a charge was one of exceptional gravity and involved consequences which brought very severe punishment under the code, involved the loss of their employment, loss of their standing in the future and that it would be only right to make a provision under which they would he subject, for that offence, to be prosecuted upon indictment, with the option to themselves to take a summary procedure of trial if they thought proper. This provided that a man who has committed the offence I have described is liable upon indictment to two years imprisonment or to a fine not exceeding $2,-5*00, or to both fine and imprisonment. Then there are additional provisions for the method of trial and a provision that any person liable to punishment under a charge of this kind shall not be prosecuted under the Secret Commissions Act. I may say that this was considered before it was
agreed upon and that in out judgment it is a desirable and commendable provision.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (York):: Do I understand the minister to say that the railroad brotherhoods concerned have asked for this?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, it was asked for
by the parties affected and they seemed to us to make out a perfectly good case that they had a grievance. Section 11 is struck out by the Senate. That was a section that required that, before a man could be taken from one province to be tried in another province, there should be a request on behalf of the Attorney General of the province into which he was being taken. I am not in a position to give the reasons of the Senate for striking out that clause.
Section 16 is also amended. That section as it left this House provided, that where no criminal term was held in a particular district in the province of Quebec the case might be transmitted to an adjoining district where a term was being held. The amendment provides that this may be done whenever no jury is summoned in the particular district, the Attorney General of the province having requested that modification.
Article 17 is amended by simply inserting the two words "of appeal" after the word "notice" which makes the provision more clear but does not change it.
The Senate have added clauses 18, 19 and 20. Clause 18 is a provision which affects the legislation with regard to what is usually called the age of consent. It provides that on the trial df any offence against sections 4, 5 and 9 of this Act- which are the sections dealing with the offences I have mentioned-the trial judge may instruct the jury that if in their view the evidence does not show that the accused is wholly or chiefly bo blame for the commission of said offence they may find a verdict of acquittal. It is obvious that this very much mitigates the rigour-if that is a proper word to apply to it-of the provision which this House thought ought to be passed.


Mr. MORPHY:: What is the offence dealt with?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Three offences, which consist of having illicit connection either with a girl between fourteen and sixteen, with a girl who is in the employ df the party committing the offence, or with a girl, under certain circumstances, between

sixteen and eighteen; and the provision is as I have just read it, that if the jury be of opinion that the blame is not entirely, or mainly, with the male person concerned, they may find a verdict of acquittal.
Mr. MiORPHY: Does the minister think that is a wise provision as regards a girl of fourteen years of age?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It does not apply to the girl of fourteen. It applies to the girl between fourteen and sixteen, to the girl who is in the employ of the person committing the offence, and to the girl between sixteen and eighteen when it comes within the conditions making it an offence to have illicit . connection with her. As to whether it is a wise provision or not there is room for difference o'f opinion. I think we had better accept it at the present time. The Senate have also added section 19 which amends section 216 as enacted by chapter 13 of the statutes of 1913. The amendment substitutes "five" for "ten" in that provision. Finally there is a provision that the Act shall come .into operation on the 15th day of October next. I move that the amendments be concurred in.


Ernest Lapointe: With regard to the section which provides that if there is no term of the criminal court in a particular district of the province of Quebec the prisoner can be tried in another district, is that only to be done at the discretion of the Attorney General or has the prisoner something to say?
(Mr. DOHERTY: The accused has the right to ask for it if he so desires; the Attorney General also has the right to ask for it if he thinks proper. Heretofore the Attorney General had no such right, and the consequence was very injurious to prisoners in some instances as well as to the carrying on ol the administration of justice, because it created a situation where the prisoner was exposed, perhaps, to the likelihood of being kept a very long time in jail without an opportunity of trial. Moreover it is pointed out that it involves an exceedingly disproportionate expense in the [DOT]administration of justice1 in districts in our province where offences are scarce, where you can only manage to find one or two people who are accused of anything and the large expense would be incurred in the district of holding a court and summoning jurors.


Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers):: But the prisoner may ask for a change of venue at any time:
[.Mr. Doherty.]


Charles Joseph Doherty: When there is proper call for it.
Mr. STEIN (Kamouraekal:	May the
prisoner prevent a change of venue?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 'If a district to which he is being sent is one in which he thinks he will not get a fair trial he will have the same right to ask for a change of venue as he would when he is brought before any other court.
Motion agreed to and Senate amendments concurred in.



NATURALIZATION ACT (1914) AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY moved concurrence in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill 184, to revive and amend the Naturalization Act, 1914. He said: The amendments are three in number. One is to insert a clause which was enacted in the fall session of 1919 and the insertion of which was overlooked when the Bill went through this year owing to an oversight. It was to provide that the application in the province of Ontario might, in addition to the other courts mentioned, be made to the Court of General Sessions.
The second amendment is to make more clear the provision about the posting up of the notice of application. It is provided that the notice shall ibe posted up at least three months 'before the .application is heard by the court. The effect Of the amendment is to require that the notice shall be posted up continuously for that period, which I think is what was intended.
The third 'amendment is to insert in section 7 the words "the time of." They Clearly ought to have (been in there, .the particular phrase having reference to something which existed "a't or at any time before the grant of the certificate." The amendment .simply puts in Ithe words "the time of" to .make the section read: "at .the time of or at any time before the grant," etc.
Amendments read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
The Speaker announced the receipt of a message from the Senate that it doth not insist upon ife first amendment to' Bill No. 53, to 'amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, and the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1919, to which ithe House of Commons had disagreed.﻿JUNE 29, 1920

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. G. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Jnet-ice) moved the second reading of Bill 218 to amend the Judges Act:
Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Lapradrie and Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, before this Bill is read the second time I desire to make a few remarks in regard Ito it. I may say at once that I do not approve of it. The country is confronted with a very heavy debt, and the Government do not know where to get the money to meet our obligations. During this session new .taxes have been imposed for over $100,000,000, but I have no doubt that at the next session of Parliament the Minister of Finance will require further revenue to meet the increasing expenditure. That being the case, I do not see why a certain class of the community should have their salaries increased, particularly when this Government has been preaching economy for the last five or mx years, and we on ithis side of the House have been doing the same. Therefore, if we want to prove to the people that we are sincere we must not pass this Bill.
I am not the only member who is of the opinion that the increase should not take place alt the present time. My right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) who leads the Government said in this House on the 23rd instant-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I nrusit call the attention of the hon. member to the rule that reference cannot be made to- a previous debate in the same session.
LANOTOT: I will not read from the Hansard report, Mr. Speaker. But if my memory serves hie well, I think the Prime Minister told hon. members that this was not the proper time Ito increase the indemnities, beoautee we have had to refuse the soldiers' request for gratuities, and public works of ail kinds have had to be postponed by reason of the heavy financial commitments of the country. I itake the same stand now as when I voted for the amendment proposed by my hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the 1st of March last, that Ithis Government should not attempt to legislate any more because it has no longer the support of the people.
When the debate took place last week, many hon. members participated in it, but having read all the speeches then delivered I am still at a.loss to find any strong argument in favour of increased indemnities at the present juncture. We have been told by some hon. members that if the country
wants good men it must pay them a good salary. That may be true, but I wonder, if hon. members receive the $1,500 more that is called for by this Bill, whether they will be any better men.
Some hon. members advise me, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the Bill for the increased indemnities.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. The Bill, which is now before the House is Bill 218 ,to amend the Judges Act. I did not wish to restrict the hon. member because I thought he was merely making a reference to the other Bill.


Roch Lanctôt: As I intend to move an amendment to Bill 219 to increase the indemnities, I will resume my seat for the present.


Mr. EDMOND PROULX (Prescott):: I do not want to repeat the arguments, which I made yesterday-
Mr. JACIQUEiS BUREAU : Arguments !


Edmond Proulx: -.against increasing the judges' salaries when the Government today finds, it such a difficult matter to make both ends meet. As we have been imposing taxes on almost all the necessaries of life, I am of the opinion that the judges might well wait until the financial condition of the country is considerably better. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Lanctot:
That Bill 21S be not tout that it be read a months.
now read a second time, second time this day six


Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin):: Might I ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) if the judges whose salaries are increased another thousand dollars will be entitled to pensions corresponding with the increase? If so, I shall oppose the Bill. I am not against paying good salaries, but I am against pensions and big salaries.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The provision that
judges are entitled to retire on full salary is entirely abolished; but those judges who to-day are under that law entitled to retire with full salary would he entitled to do so with the salary of to-day so long as they meet the conditions governing their retirement. That position as drafted does not apply to the County Court judges, but will be prepared to consider an amendment when we get into committee, which will be the proper place to deal with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
minister kindly repeat his answer for the benefit of this side of the House?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was explaining that in regard to all judges hereafter appointed the provisions which entitle them to retire

with full pay are repealed, and that as regards all judges presently upon the Bench, and who are therefore under the law which confers that right upon them, if they retire in the future under conditions which would under the existing law entitle them to full salary, they will receive only the full salary as it is to-day, not including the addition to be made by the present Bill.
Amendment (Mr. Proulx) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 5-Exchequer Court of Canada ;
John Best: I would like the minister to give us an assurance that these pensions will be regulated or wiped out. I want to express my honest conviction that this pension business is getting to be a farce in this country. Why should those who make large salaries get pensions while those who get small salaries, and who need the money, do not? I want it to be distinctly understood that I wish every civil servant, every employee of the Government, to be well paid, but T do want to see the people of this country take care of what they get. I want them to be in a position to realize that they are not going to get pensions for years to come and be a burden on the country. I am totally against pensions of this kind, especially for those who are getting good salaries. I would like the minister to say how he is going to deal with the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We might more appropriately deal with that question when we come to the clause which deals with pensions. I may say at once that this Bill does not abolish all pensions but it does abolish pensions at full pay, leaving in existence only the two-thirds pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-additional $1,000 payable to judges of Circuit, County and District Courts when district, etc., has town or city, of over 40,000 population.
Charles Joseph Doherty: I move that the marginal note be amended by striking therefrom the following words: "when district, etc., has town or city of over 40,000 population.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING:: Does this increase the salaries of judges whose salaries were increased a year ago?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: It is getting to be an annual affair. We have to increase these salaries every year, have we?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, we hope this will be the termination of it. We only want to supplement the good work that was not completed last year, but we consider it complete now.


Mr. CRERAR:: What length of service is required to entitle a judge to pension?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The present provision is that a man who in the High Court has served fifteen years shall be entitled to a pension of two-thirds of his salary. A man who has served twentydive years and is seventy years of age may retire with full pay; so with the man who has served twenty years and is seventy-five years of age. These provisions for retirement .with full pay are dealt with in the last section of the Bill.


Mr. CROTHERS:: Is there any provision here to make the retiring allowance depend upon the length of service?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The effect of the last clause of the Bill is to do away with any provision, so far as this increase is concerned, which entitles a man to retire with full pay, leaving as it is the provision that a man who has served fifteen years or more may retire with two-thirds of his salary. Any man who to-day comes under the law which entitles him after a certain period of time to retire with full pay will be entitled, when tfie time comes, only to the pay as it stands to-day, without the increase.


William Stevens Fielding: Is it not possible that the proportionate allowance of the larger salary may be better than the full allowance of the lower salary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that is possible. The present increase is $2,000; the total salary does not increase by more than one-third.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-repeal of provision making judges liable to taxation who received an increase under Act of 1919.
William Stevens Fielding: I notice that the provision with respect to extra payment to judges -which, I think, is a wise provision-does not extend to any of the judges below the Superior Courts. Why should not this provision extend to the gentlehien to whom we voted an extra $1,000 last year and for whom we have just provided another $1,000?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that ia quite proper. We can amend section 12 by adding after the word "Superior" in the second line, the words "Circuit, County or District."


William Stevens Fielding: Would it not be better simply to say, "no judge	shall receive any remuneration" and so on?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I accept that suggestion.
/I move that section 12 be amended by striking out from the second and third lines of subclause 1 of 34 the following words:
-of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Provincial Superior Court.


Mr. McMASTER:: Might I draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that by broadening his clause in this way he would cut out the police magistrate who, I presume, would be a judge, whose salary might be very small and who might be asked to do very important work outside of his duties. Perhaps that is the intention and it may be a good thing, but I wish to point it out.


Charles Joseph Doherty: A judge of the police
court is not a judge under this Act at all. He is not appointed by the Dominion Government, and this Act would have no application to him.
Mr. MoMAlSTER:	In common parlance
he is called a judge.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think we can safely
assume that in an Act of this Parliament of Canada dealing with salaries of judges appointed by the Dominion Government, a judge means a judge under this Act. The salary of a police magistrate would be ultra vires. We have no authority over a police magistrate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would the minister explain the purport of this amendment again, because it is quite impossible to hear down at this end of the Chamber.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The clause as it stood prescribed that no judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court, or any Provincial Superior Court, shall receive any remuneration in addition to his salary for acting as Administrator or Deputy of the Governor General, or for the performance of any executive or judicial duties that he might be called upon to perform by the Dominion or by the province. The amendment strikes out the enumeration of particular courts so as to make the provision apply to a judge of any court, that is, 281
of course, any court coming under our authority and under this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: A provision is very
properly made that, in case of these additional services, judges shall be allowed out of pocket expenses. But the words used are "shall be entitled to his moving or transportation expense and living allowance." If he is travelling, the living allowance will be all right, but if he is doing some work in the place where he lives, he ought not to have any living allowance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
will notice this reads: "his moving or transportation expenses and living allowance at the rate provided by section 18 of this Act," that is, of the Act we are amending, not clause 18 of this Bill. Section 18 of the Act prescribes the conditions upon which a man gets a living allowance; he gets a living allowance when he is absent from his home living in some place other than the place of his usual or official residence as a judge.


William Stevens Fielding: If it is as clear as my right hon. friend says, I have no objection. That a judge should get a living allowance when he is travelling is perfectly right, but if, say, an Ottawa judge is called upon to perform some duties in this city, he should not have a living allowance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I want to make it perfectly dear and we shall make it perfectly clear by using the phrase "at the rate and on the conditions provided by section 18." I, therefore, move to further amend subclause (2) of clause 12 by inserting after the word "rate" in line 10 on page 8 of the Bill, the following words, "and upon the conditions." The clause will now read:
Shall be entitled to his moving or transportation expenses and living allowance at the rate and upon the conditions provided by section 18 of this Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: In subclauee (2) at the foot of page 7, I think it would be better to strike out the enumeration of judges as we did in the preceding suhclause, so that it will read, "every judge who may be nominated."


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. I move that subclause (2) of clause 12 be amended by Striking out after the word "judge" in the first line thereof the words "of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of



Canada, or of any Provincial Superior Court."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 1,3-increases of salary not to affect annuities equal to a full salary under section 20, and said section not to apply to judges hereafter appointed.
Mr. GROT  HERS@: There is a provision
that the retiring allowance of a County Court judge shall be determined by length of 'Service. This 'Section, las I understand it, provides that that would not apply to the addition of 81,000 granted the other day.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I explained that with the additions we have made to this, County Court judges to-day are entitled, if they have served twenty-five years, to retire on two-thirds of their salary. As regards County Court judges, the only men who can retire on full salary are, not men who voluntarily retire, but men who, under a provision of the law introduced 3 p.m. some six or seven years ago, are compulsorily retired when they reach the age of seventy-five years. That enactment, whether Parliament was wise in enacting it or not, was not an enactment in the interests of the judges; it was looked upon as an enactment in the public interest to ensure the disappearance of men who, it was assumed as a general rule-of course, we all recognize there are exceptions-had reached the limit of their usefulness, and when you compulsorily retire a man, it seemed to Parliament at that time that it would be right to give him his full salary. It must be borne in mind m regard to that class of men whom we presume to be unfitted for the performance of their duties, that the number of years they are likely to live is not very great. But outside of that, I think there is a provision that a County Court judge having served thirty years, may retire on full pay. There is no provision, excepting that provision of compulsory retirement, that says that a County Court judge, irrespective of length of service, may retire on either his full pay or a pension. Of course, where a man breaks down through illness and infirmity and is incapable of performing his duties, in such a case he gets two-thirds of h-is salary.
Mr. CROTHE'RS:	I have no doubt the
minister has looked into this matter and that what he says is correct. I have not 
so understood the matter for years, but I have not had time to look it up myself. I understood the practice for some years has been that if a County Court judge reached the age of seventy-five years, he was compulsorily retired, and regardless of the length of time he has served, whether it was five years or ten years or twenty-five years, he would be entitled to full pay. For instance, if a man was appointed a County Court judge ten years ago at the age of sixty-five, under the law as it was then, he would he entitled on reaching seventy-five years of age to his full salary for the rest of his life. The retiring allowance was to depend upon the salary he was receiving at the time he retired. That amounted to an agreement with the man. Now you hold that the additional amount he receives in his salary shall not be taken into account Tn calculating his retiring allowance. That strikes me as a breach of faith with the man who accepted the office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Clause 13, line 20, says:
And the provisions of the said section 20 shall not apply to any judge appointed after the passing of this Act.
This Bill contains only 13 clauses and there is evidently something wrong.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. member will see that the first section of the Bill begins by referring to paragraphs so-and-so of section 2 of the Judges Act, Revised Statutes of 1906, etc. That is the Act that is referred to all through this Bill as "the said Act." There seems to be a difference of opinion with regard to the application of this last clause, which provides that the increases of salaries granted by this Bill shall not entitle any judge to any increase in the annuity which may be granted to him under section 20 of the Judges' Act. There is a difference of opinion as to whether this should apply to County Court judges or not. I understand that the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Best) suggests that it should, and the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) is of opinion that there is an element of injustice in so doing. I do not think that argument quite applies when we are giving an increase of salary and making this provision a condition of the increase. However, I am in the hands of the committee as to whether it is necessary, in view of the very limited number of cases in which County Court judges are entitled to retire with full pay, to make this applicable to 'both classes. It is fair to

bear in mind that in all these cases the men are very old and the amount they will have to live on for the rest of their lives 'will be but $5,000, the amount that they have become accustomed to spend. It will cost us very little because it will be for a very few years. These considerations led the Government, in considering the matter, not to include them in the section. As I say, however, I am in the hands of the committee if the committee thinks it will he better to apply the same rule to both classes of judges.


Roch Lanctôt: I have a couple of amendments which I desire to move. I move, seconded by Mr. Proulx, that there be added to the Bill as section 14, 'Subsection 1, the following:
If any person receiving a pension under the said Act becomes entitled to any salary in respect of any public office under His Majesty, in respect of His Government of Canada, such salary shall be reduced by the amount of such pension.
I might just as well move the other one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: One at a time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this amendment intended to be retroactive, or does my hon. friend propose that it shall apply in the future?


Roch Lanctôt: I think it might be better to make it applicable to future cases. I would not care to make it retroactive; we have had enough retroactive things for a while. I cannot, of course, help what has been done in the past, but I think a provision such as this is desirable for the future.


Edmond Proulx: I remember that in 1905 when pensions were granted ex-ministers there was a provision in the Act that the pension of an ex-minister would be reduced by the amount of any salary he might receive from an office under the Government. It is only fair that this provision should apply to judges who, in receipt of a pension, accept a salaried office from the Dominion Government.


William Stevens Fielding: If the amendment is made to apply to any present case it would seem to have a personal colour and I would very much regret anything of that kind. I would be willing to support it if it applied to the future, because the principle laid down is absolutely .sound. I should like to see my hon. friend revise the amendment to take out of it the personal colour. The argument is a sound one and the amend-2814
ment should carry, subject to that qualification.


Robert Laird Borden: I might say, on behalf of the Government, that I am prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's.


Roch Lanctôt: I am perfectly willing to accept the suggestion.


Edmond Proulx: I am prepared to make it apply only to cases in the future.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I am not going to say that I am opposed to the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), which has been acquiesced in by the Prime Minister, but I should like to hear both of these gentlemen give reasons for the acceptance of the suggestion which came from hon. gentlemen opposite. I cannot quite see the reason for reducing the salary of a minister of the Crown who is serving in that capacity by reason of the fact that in some former occupation which he pursued he earned under the law a pension. I am open to conviction, but T should like to hear both hon. gentlemen give reasons in support of their contention.


William Stevens Fielding: I made no mention of
ministers of the Crown but I think we must clearly see that the whole purpose of a pension chargeable upon the public treasury in the case of any man who has occupied a permanent position is that he shall receive that pension after the time when, by reason of advancing years, physical or mental infirmity, he is no longer able to discharge his duties. If under no other circumstances a pension is, as should be, granted to him, and if he is afterwards called upon to discharge some public duty surely it is not reasonable that he should take both the pension and the salary too. It seems to me that is a very simple proposition. The theory of a pension is that no man should receive a pension if he is able to discharge his duties. If he is not able to discharge his duties he may fairly claim a pension, but if he is not able to discharge his duties in one office he is presumably not able to discharge them in another. I am sorry that my hon. friend has made allusion to any specific instance because l had no idea of making any particular reference but I think the principle laid down that no man has a right to both salary and pension is absolutely sound.


Mr. LALOR:: Would that apply to the indemnity of a member of Parliament as well?


William Stevens Fielding: An indemnity is not
a salary?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I fail to see
that the argument presented by the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) is absolutely sound. I unfortunately mentioned the ease of a minister of the Crown receiving a pension from the State. Suppose a person is receiving a pension of $500 a year and he comes to the capital of his country to perform a public duty in the capacity of a minister of the Crown. The salary which he will receive hereafter is $10,000 a year and I assume that is intended as a recompense for the service which he is rendering to his country. I think that $10,000 is little enough. I would have preferred that it should have been more in the present instance but it does seem anomalous to reduce that minister's salary by $500 by reason of the fact that he is drawing a pension from the State for some service rendered in the past.


John Best: How would it be reducing the salary by $500 if ia person drawing $500 as 0i pension and not drawing, a salary for anything else were appointed ia minister of the Crown at $10,000 a year? He would be drawing $10,000 in place of 'the $500 and he would, !by failing to draw his $500, be getting $10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton):: The hon.
gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) has just cited the case of a judge who had been appointed a short time, who had then been pensioned and.whO' bad become ia member of the Cabinet. Assuming that ia member of the Cabinet were defeated in an election or chose to resign his Cabinet position, would he then 'be entitled to 'resume his pension? Under the amendment may he go back to his pension' or is he deprived of both the *salary and the pension?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The amendment as read ' a moment ago' does not cover that case.


Herbert John Mackie: If the amendment is to jeopardize ia gebtlemam's future by reason of the precarious position, he 'holds as a member of the Cabinet, you are going to prevent men of ability from entering politics or holding such positions by reason of the fact .that they may be at any time deprived of their source of revenue.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The case cited by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) would not arise under the statute which says:
If any judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or of the Exchequer Court of Canada or of any superior court in Canada, who has continued in the office of judge of a superior court in Canada, or in any of the provinces, for fifteen years or upwards, or who becomes afflicted with some permanent infirmity.
Not simply after a year or two but permanent infirmity. The particular case set forth by the hon. member for Maisonneuve where a man being made a judge, after a month or two becomes ill, resigns, gets a pension for life and on becoming better can take another position at a large salary does not come within (the provision of this section. Thalt is not the intention of the provisions of this section. He must be permanently infirm or have served fifteen years. Now a man enters into the public service in accordance with the terms of this statute. That is, the Government says to

him: "You will go to the Bench and when you have served the country for fifteen years you will be entitled to a pension of trwo-thirds of your salary." That is an agreement, a contract. The man says: "Very well, I will accept your offer. I will go upon the Bench for fifteen years and then I .shall be entitled to two-thirds of my salary," That is simply a contract and the man is under no. obligation to any one. If at the end of fifteen years he resigns he is at perfect liberty to take .any other position he may see fit to take; and the fact that he accepts a salary in connection with some other position does not affect at all his right to that pension. It is simply a case of carrying out .an agreement with the man when he .accepted that position on the Bench.


William Stevens Fielding: I question whether it
would be wise policy to provide that any officer in the public service of Canada-after a period of fifteen years and while he is blessed with health, strength and energy- should be entitled, of his own motion, to claim a pension and go out. I question whether that was the meaning of the law. My hon. friend from Elgin, I presume, has been reading from the Revised Statutes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: I think this matter
was discussed a year or two ago and that some changes were made in the law which qualifies the provision which my hon. friend has just read. However, I do not wish to dwell upon that. There is some difficulty in framing a suitable amendment on this matter; and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that it might be fitting for him to let that clause .stand for a. few hours land .at a later stage he might bring in an. amendment which might meet the views of .all parties. There .are difficulties in framing an amendment, as the right hon. gentleman has probably already seen. However, if he prefers to press the matter now I have no objection. I think the spirit of his amendment is good but it needs careful consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would like to say one word. I do not want to discuss the principle o'f the amendment at all because it might very properly be suggested that I am not a disinterested judge of that question. Nevertheless I would like to set myself right in one respect. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) expressed the opinion that in all cases the idea of a pension was associated with infirmity, or old age, or incapacity of some kind to perform the duty. Now let me point out that there was in force in this- country before I was born-so far as I know it has been the law from time immemorial-a law, as the hon. member for West Elgin pointed out, containing the express provision that if a man has served fifteen years he should be entitled to a pension.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, and let me say
this in addition; at the time I resigned, a government of which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) was a member was in power in Canada. That government had a Minister of Justice with regard to whom I am sure we would all agree, that Canada has had no more eminent lawyer. Let me further point this out: I did not retire and ask for a pension. I tendered my resignation to take effect when His Majesty should be pleased to grant me the pension to which my fifteen years of service-that was set forth in express terms-entitled me under such a section of such a statute; and the government of that day acquiesced in that view, otherwise they would not have accepted the resignation. I must say that I felt bound to proceed in that way because if it was a matter of asking anything that was not my absolute right I did not desire to follow that course. More than that, before I took that step I was at pains to look very carefully as to what the effect of the provision was, because it was suggested that by reason of the word "may" being used that affected, in some way, the absolute nature of the right. However, I found it to be absolutely a settled law in the United Kingdom that "may" used in a provision of that kind-enacted for the benefit of a certain class of persons, and prescribing the conditions by which they should be entitled to that benefit-was to he interpreted as imposing a duty on the Government, not as granting a privilege; and a moment's reflection upon the effect of treating it otherwise will, I think, make it quite clear why that is so. What is going to become of the independence of the judiciary if the Governor in Council can sit and say to one man who has been fifteen years on the Bench, "I like you, you can have youir pension," to another man who has served fifteen years, "I do not like you, you cannot have your pension." One of the fundamental principles of our constitution is the preservation of the independence of the judiciary, and that is absolutely inconsistent

with the conferring of discretionary power upon the Government-any government- to grant this or that to a judge. The rights of the judges, if you are going to secure their independence, must be absolutely fixed and not dependent upon anybody's discretion. Now as I have said I looked into the condition of the law in England; and when looking back I found that the then Minister of Justice in Canade-not dealing with my case at all but talking on the general proposition-expressed the opinion that has just been expressed by the hon. member for West Elgin-that that clause constituted a contract between the man appointed and the Government of this country which has conferred upon the former a right. The occasion was a discussion upon the repeal of a statute which had granted a pension on retirement. The hon. Mr. Ayles-worth justified that repeal. It was suggested to him that it involved a violation of a contract under which service had been rendered and this instance was cited. Mr. Aylesworth made the distinction. He pointed out that as it happened there was no man who had become a minister while that provision for pension existed and therefore there could be no contract on the subject; whereas, he said, with regard to every judge who accepted office under the law making that provision, there was a Qontract which it would not be justifiable to violate. I found also in our own province the opinion of the late Hon. Francois Lan-gelier, for a number of years Lieutenant-Governor of the province, a judge of one of our highest courts and whose position as jurist is beyond question. He, commenting upon an article of our Code in the province which provides that "may" is to have the meaning of "shall" gave as an illustration, showing that that was the proper meaning, this very section. I desire to say this, if the committee will bear with me, because I think it is fair that the position as it presented itself to my mind should be put before them; and the fact that the view that I took obtained the sanction to which I have alluded is also I think to be borne in mind. It 'is also to be remembered that salaries are fixed with that pension in mind. I served those fifteen years on a salary of $5,000 a year with the right to this pension. At the time that I accepted office it was a matter of universal .comment that the salaries were too low. I accepted office, but I accepted it with that right, among others. I may say that in discussing whether I should accept it or not, friends of mine thought that I w.as doing an unwise thing, 
and the consideration that weighed with me, as was pointed out at the time, was that at. the end of fifteen years I would not yet be an old man and I would have acquired the right to that pension with my leisure. I express no opinion in regard to it; I leave that to the judgment of the House.
It would follow from that naturally that I would share the view expressed by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) but, .as I said, I do not want to discuss it. But I do want to add one Ithing further: When I accepted office in the then Borden administration I submitted the facts-and I think my then colleagues will recollect the incident - at our first meeting, and I said ' then that if any of my colleagues entertained a doubt as to whether that pension was my absolute right, I -would be prepared to forego it. Those gentlemen-and they were all fairly competent-expressed themselves in the sense that that pension was my absolute right, and I acted accordingly. With the best judgment I can bring to bear upon the subject I never had a qualm of oonscienoe, land for myself I would go on feeling that I was just as .absolutely entitled to that pension ais if I had rendered like service to any individual citizen upon a life covenant.


William Stevens Fielding: I regret exceedingly
that the- right hon. Minister of Justice has deemed it necessary to present his own case to the House. I do not think he was called upon to do so, for I do not think any hon. member made any remark which might be taken to reflect on my right hon. friend; certainly I did not do so. While my right hon. friend and I do noit always agree, I have always found him most courteous, and as good and just as it is possible for a good Tory to be. I have nothing but the profoundest respect for him, and I would feel the deepest regret if any word I had staid had wounded him in the slightest degree, !l do not desire to .reflect- on him. I am dealing with this as a matter of principle, and I think that the very essence of a pension system is that a pension shall be accorded to a mian, no matter what his public service may be, when he is no longer able to render efficient service. If we are making contracts whereby men in the heyday of their youth and energy can retire upon a pension, I think it time we ohanged the contracts. But let me say again that I had not the slightest thought of reflecting on my right hon. friend, and if any word of

mine wounded him I exceedingly regret it and desire to take it back.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not quite sure that the provision of pensions has always followed precisely the lines which my hon. friend for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has suggested, whether we look to this country or to other countries. I think sometimes you will find that a pension has been entirely dependent upon length of service, and in other cases1 it has been dependent .altogether upon incapacity to perform further the duties which were in the first instance committed to the person in question. However, I do not know that it is worth while for us to pursue that subject further. I should be prepared to accept the amendment which the hon. gentleman from Laprairie .and Napierville (Mr. Lanetot) has proposed in the following form:
If hereafter any person becomes entitled to a pension under the said Act, and becomes also entitled to any salary in respect of any public office under His Majesty in respect of His Government of Canada, such salary shall he reduced by the amount of such pension.
If that is acceptable to my hon. friend it can be adopted.


Roch Lanctôt: That is acceptable to me.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: I regret that the evident sense of the House appears to be behind my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, for I think that he has accepted this amendment somewhat hastily. I would like to have heard him pursue further the grounds upon which pensions are conferred, because I think that he touched the crux of the whole matter when he raised that question.
I conceive a pension to a judge given by the State after fifteen years service, where no question of illness is involved, is a recognition on the part of the State of the tremendously arduous >and responsible work of the judge. With my long experience of the administration of law on both sides of the Atlantic, I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the respect in which the highest legal dignitaries of the land should be held. It was not infrequently my lot as a medical man to give evidence before the assize courts of the Old Land, and I always felt when giving that evidence that I was in the presence of a tribunal which ranked next to the great Judgment Seat to which we are told we are all going.
The recognition of the dignity of the law and the keen sense of justice, that actuates the highest functionaries connected with
the law has a tremendous influence upon what I conceive to be the deepest respect for law and order and advanced civilization that has been seen in the world, and if I may claim the honour I still think that that profound respect is to be found in the Old Sod and in the other countries of the Empire.
Now, what is the position? The State has in its wisdom recognized by law the dignity of the judge's position, his high services to the State, the tremendous strain upon him while he is doing his work; it has recognized him to this extent, that in the wisdom of Parliament a law has been enacted that at the end of fifteen years service this high dignitary is entitled to a pension. There may be the recognition of another principle-but I should be sorry to have to state it in that case-that we do not pay our judges enough. If that were so, no greater disgrace to the country could be imagined. Probably the right principle in regard to pensions is that all servants of the public should receive enough while they are serving the public in such capacities as we are referring to that they could save enough money during the fifteen years service not to need any pension thereafter. But in that connection the State has viewed the question differently; that a salary is given sufficient to maintain the dignity of the position, and that a pension resulting from that salary is legally conferrable upon a judge or other functionary at the end of fifteen years.
I contend that if there is an evil, in the brief period we have been considering the question we have not discovered it. Like my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) I have very little sympathy with this amendment. I repeat my regret that it has been accepted somewhat hastily, in my judgment, by my right hon. friend.
If there is an evil it is either that we do not pay our judges sufficiently or that perhaps it *would be better for us if a tradition grew up amongst us that one who has held the high position of a judge shall be ineligible for service in politics afterwards. I think that would be the better course. I am not prepared at the moment to suggest what course the committee should take. It will probably take the course -and I am not going to blame it-of following the 'advice of my right bom. friend (Sir Robert Borden) on one side and the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) on the other. I do not think that the amendment goes to the root of the evil. We have

taken the course of accepting it hastily; it is simply a picayune amendment, in my judgment, and I have no sympathy with it.	.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Michael Clark: 
Mr. MOWAT:: This matter is so important to the ranks of the bar that I think something should be said about it. I believe that the amendment can be accepted without interfering with the principle which my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) and my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) have spoken about, because the person who gets the pension has the option of accepting a further office of emolument or not. There seems to be a disposition on the part of some members to think that judges are an especially favoured class of the community. But that is not the case. It is more desirable, I would say essential, that judges should be men occupying the highest place at the bar, professionally and otherwise, and1 occupying the highest place in their community as trusted men, because they stand between the poor and the rich and have at all times great and onerous responsibility. Now, to get the best men as judges sometimes you have to appeal to men who are in receipt of a larger income than they would get on the Bench, and they have to sacrifice the;r independence. It is an attractive thing to a man who is offered a judgeship to feel that he will receive something after his judicial career is ended, So that ithe principle is not to support him, as my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) has said: not to support him only, but to majfce a bargain with him which will induce the lest men in the country to take the judicial office. And so I say that this arrangement is a bargain or agreement to pay this amount of money yearly after a man's judicial career has ended. The payment may be spread over a period of years after he retires, but at the same time it is the consideration for an agreement made. Unless you have some arrangement of this kind I fear that the principle which was had in mind when the Act was passed in the first place, a principle which has been recognized in England for many years, will be subverted, with much resulting disadvantage. It is highly important that the bargain should be kept. While statutes cannot be changed to suit the times, let us not forget that the reasons for the passing of this statute exist to-day as reasons for -its continuance.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments, read the
third time and passed.
.TUNE 29, 1920

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the second Teading of Bill No. 219, to amend the Salaries Act and the Senate and House of Commons Act. He said:
The question involved in this measure is one of considerable importance and interest, and I entirely agree that it should be fully and frankly discussed. The committee was good enough last evening to pass the resolution pro forma on the understanding that that step should1 not commit any hon. member to the support of the Bill, and that the matter should be entirely open upon the second reading and in the Committee of the Whole House.
The question involved in this measure is one for the House rather than for the Government, although, of course, legislation of this character must, under the provisions of our constitution, be initiated by the Government. In a recent debate I expressed certain views which are familiar to the House. I stated with perfect frankness my belief that the indemnity of members at the present time is too low, and on the other hand I expressed a doubt as to whether the present session was an opportune time for taking action in the matter. Having regard to what seemed to be the views of a large majority in the House, I thought St my duty to present this legislation to Parliament. I have not felt that the question whether the time is or is not opportune ought completely and absolutely to control all other considerations, and hence the proposals are before the House in the form which I am now proceeding to discuss.
It is desirable, I think, to give a short historical review of the arrangements for indemnities of members since this confederation was formed and also to set forth certain facts which have a bearing upon the present situation. Immediately after Confederation the indemnity of members of Parliament was fixed at the sum of $1,000; at that time the sessions were very .short, lasting about six weeks or two months. The 'business of Parliament and of the Government as well was then relatively insignificant to what it is at the present. The indemnity continued at that figure until the session of 1901, the first session after the general election of 1900, and during that session the indemnity was increased to the sum of $1,500. Just before that session I had 'been elected leader of 'the Opposition,
which position I held for a considerable time, indeed, somewhat longer than I would have wished.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. JACOBS:: Many happy returns.


Robert Laird Borden: I can observe in the ebullitions of my hon, friends on the other side of the House the same spirit which used to animate us during those days, but I fear that the fruition of their hopes will be postponed much longer than in our case. There was a good deal of debate about the increase in 1901. I supported the increase; many apprehensions were expressed as to its effect; but none of them, so far as I am aware, have been realized up to the present time. The indemnity remained at the sum of $1,500 until the first session after the general election of 1904; indeed, it seems to have been a practice to deal with these matters immediately after a general election. At that time the indemnity was increased to $2,500. The tremendous increase in the cost of living, the increase also in the length of sessions, could not have been foreseen at that time and were not foreseen. Hence, it was then anticipated that no further increase of the indemnity would be necessary for a generation at least.
The legislation of that year also embodied a proposal for a special sessional allowance to the leader of the Opposition. As I then occupied that position the question had	a certain personal relation to
me,	but I had no difficulty	in
expressing my ideas with regard to it, both publicly and privately. I remember dealing very fully with the whole question in a speech which I made in the city of Toronto immediately after the session of 1905. The view which I then expressed and which I now entertain is this, that unless the selection of the leader of a party in. Opposition is to be confined to the wealthy and leisured class-and we would all, I think, regard that as detrimental to the best interests of the country-or unless on the other hand he is to be made dependent upon financial interests in his own party, then a salary should be provided for the leader of the Opposition, and it was provided. The practice has since been followed in several of the1 provinces, and although my acceptance of that situation was attended at that time with many jeers and gibes from various quarters throughout the country, I never paid very much attention to them. Any one must he absolutely fool-


Jacques Bureau: 


William Stevens Fielding: It was increased later.


Edmond Proulx: The Premier of Ontario receives $9,000. The Isalary was raised to $9,000 in 1909 and a few years ago it was raised to $12,000 but the present premier draws only $9,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what the Prime Minister of Ontarioi receives or Whether he takes any of his salary or not. I was merely referring to the fact 'that the statutory amount fixed by the Legislature is $12,000. In the province of Quebec I understand there has been a recent increase in the salary of the premier to $12,000.


Jacques Bureau: 


Robert Laird Borden: What is the salary of the ministers in that province?


Mr. TRAHAN:: 


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I have in this memorandum.
Manitoba-
Premier	$6,000
Ministers	  *5,000
British Columbia-
Premier	 [DOT] [DOT]	7,500
Ministers	 6,000
Alberta-
Premier	 8,500
Ministers	 6,000

Saskatchewan-
Premier	 7,500
Attorney General	 7,500
Ministers	 5,000
Nova Scotia-
Premier	$6,000
Ministers	 >3,000
I do not seem to 'have a memorandum for New Brunswick. The proposal of the GweEnimemt in regard to the salaries of ministers is as follows: In the first place such amendment is proposed in the law as will mtaike it unnecessary for the Prime ^Minister to hold any portfolio. He need not he burdened with any portfolio; irrespective of whether he is holding a portfolio or not he will receive 'a salary of $15,000 as Prime [Minister. Of course if he should hold a portfolio he will not receive any additional salary.
It is proposed to fix the salaries of the ministers at $10,000 each. That is an increase of about 40 per cent above the amount at which they were fixed half a century ago. I venture to suggest to the House that the salaries now proposed are not unduly large. I believe that a Bank Manager of the second class'at the present time would receive $12,000 or $15,000. The salary of the general manager of a bank I am afraid is almost beyond my computation, but I imagine it would run up to $25,000 and $30,000 in some instances.


An hon. MEMBER:: Even $50,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I realize thoroughly that ,a democracy cannot be expected to compensate its servants upon anything like the basis which prevails in private corporations; but I do think that the increases which I have proposed are pretty moderate and reasonable and I hope the House will approve of the action of the Government in submitting them.
Now that covers pretty nearly everything in the Bill, but there are one or two other .features to which I must refer. I have already alluded to our proposal with regard to the salary of the leader of the Opposition; and it is only fair to my hon. friend and fair to the House as well- for me to say that this proposal was placed in the resolution without any communication to him on the subject. I spoke to him afterwards and said that I hoped he would consider that we did not look at the question from a personal standpoint or from any standpoint . other than that (.f the public interest, and that I did not regard it as necessary under the circumstances to ispeak to him on the subject before coming to a decision.
With respect to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker these salaries have been reasonably raised in accordance with the general increase that is proposed. The salary of the Speaker is to be increased from $4,000 to $6,000, and the same is true of the salary of the Speaker of the Senate. The salary of the Deputy Speaker of the House is to be increased from $2,000 to $4,000.
I have endeavoured to place the matter before the House in a businesslike way with a frank expression of my views. I trust that hon. members will assist us with their counsel and advice as to what should be done, and that in the end the House will approve of the measures which the Government have submitted for its consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have shared the interest of the House in following my right hon. friend in what he has just said in regard to the advisability of increasing the indemnities of (members of this House, and also of increasing the salaries of the ministers of the Crown including the salary of the Prime Minister and the allowance made to the leader of the Opposition. Let me say at once that I think a very strong case has been made out by my right hon. friend for an increase of indemnities to members, and an increase in the' salaries of ministers. I have always said, when spoken to on this subject, that I thought the amount which is being paid at the present time in the way of indemnities to hon. members of this House is not sufficient to adequately indemnify them, having regard to the increase in the cost of living, having regard to the changed conditions of the times, and having regard more particularly to what the public is entitled to expect of hon. members if they give the time and thought to the public business of the country in a manner which is worthy of it. Had I had the opportunity, when this matter was before the House the other evening, of following my right hon. friend after he spoke, I would have said that I agreed absolutely with the remarks which he made at that time. May I take occasion to read to the House the statement as then made by my right hon. friend and say that I concur in it entirely.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member wishes to ask the indulgence of the House he has the right to, of course, to do so but I must remind him that I called the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Lanctot) .to

order for referring to a previous debate on the same subject. There is no objection to the leader of the Opposition referring to that debate but he would not be in order in quoting from it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. However hon. members will find the Prime Minister's remarks in Hansard of June 25 and I may perhaps be permitted to give them in substance. My hon. friend thought that in justice to the majority of members of this House the indemnity ought to be increased, but that there were very grave doubts about the wisdom of increasing it at this particular time, and my right hon. friend set forth the reasons which he thought should govern hon. members in deciding upon the time at which any increase ought to go into effect. I agree with the Prime Minister's views as then stated, both as to the indemnity hot being sufficient and also as to there being very important reasons why we should consider carefully before having the measure now proposed go into effect at this particular time. I wish to add to what my right hon. friend has said this afternoon, as to the reason for considering an increase in the indemnity that I think the business of this Parliament, and consequently the public interest, is suffering very considerably from the manner in which legislation is being rushed through the House without careful consideration and I know that one reason which actuates the Government in its method of proceeding is that hon. members are finding it impossible to give their time to the work off the House at the sacrifice which it is involving in different directions.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the indemnity should be sufficient to enable hon. members to come to this Parliament and give all the time that may be necessary to public business.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
any indemnity that effects less than that, an indemnity which causes hon. members to lose from the business o(f Parliament two or three days out of each week, or several days out of each month, or not -to give daily the thought and time which ought to be given to public business-that such an indemnity is not an investment to the country but is a distinct loss. I have from the beginning of this session protested against what seems to be a perfectly absurd

custom of carrying on the business of this House after midnight. When the House meets in the early afternoon and there are sittings also at night, no hon. member can be in proper shape to deal with the large questions that have to be considered here day after day if he has no time whatever for preparation or for a study of the legislation which is before the House. When there are committees meeting in the mornings which horn, members have to attend, when members have correspondence to answer, and are expected to be more or less familiar with public opinion as expressed in the press, I submit that the mornings are needed for these purposes, and that the afternoon and evening sittings of the House ought to be of just such a length as will enable hon. members ta deal with public business in a satisfactory way. When it was suggested to change the time of the afternoon sittings from three o'clock to two o'clock, I then expressed the hope that if we sat from two o'clock until six o'clclck we might at least adjourn at a reasonable hour in the evening. I have here a record of The hours at which this House has adjourned since we started sitting at two o'clock, and I would like to place it on Hansard, that it may go before the country, and the public judge whether or not it is possible for hon. members to do justice to the business before the House under existing conditions such as these. It was on Friday, June 4, that we started sitting at two o'clock in the afternoon. We sat that night until' 11.30. I will read the schedule as it runs from that time on. Here are the hours of adjournment from the time when the sittings commenced at two o'clock in the afternoon.
Monday, June 7, till 12 p.m.; Tuesday. June 8, till 1 a.m.; Wednesday, June 9, till 12.10 a.m.; Thursday, June 10, till 12.35 a.m.; Friday, June 12, till 12.14 a.m.; Monday, June 14, till 12.45 a.m.; Tuesday, June 15; till 12.35 a.m.; Wednesday, June 16, till 12.18 a.m.; Thursday, June 17, till 3.24 a.m.; Friday, June 18, till 11.40 p.m.; Saturday, June, 19, till 7.05 p.m.; 'Monday, June 21, till 12.25 a.m.; Tuesday, June 22. till 2.42 a.m.; Wednesday, June 23, till 1.05 a.m.; Thursday, June 24, till 1.29 a.m; Friday, June 25, till 2.25 a.m.; last Saturday night, June 26, until midnight, in other words, Sunday morning, and last night, June 28, until 4.30 this morning.
I ask my hon. friends opposite: is it physically possible for any man who has attended these sittings to do justice to any subject which comes up at this particular

moment. We have large and important questions to consider, questions that involve the whole future trend and development of this nation, and I say it is impossible for any member of Parliament to bring a calm judgment to bear upon questions of the day when the business of Parliament is carried on in this manner. The only excuse for that sort of procedure is the circumstance that it is impossible to keep hon. members here without the assurance that the session is going to end in a very few days, and that the strain is going to be only for that short time.
But I ask: where does the reward of public life come in, if it so undermines the health and strength of men that they become absolutely unfitted for its duties and obligations? So I say, Mr. Speaker, 1 am heartily in- sympathy with increasing the indemnity to members but only on this condition, that the business of the country be carried on in a businesslike way and with due regard to what is owing the important questions which come up for consideration, and also to what is owing to the health and well-being of hon. members.
I agree entirely with the view which my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) has expressed about the desirability in the interests of democracy of not making this Parliament a rich man's preserve.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is all important that every class of the community should feel that it may elect to Parliament any representative of its class, and that the representative so elected may feel when he comes,to this Parliament that he can give his whole time and thought to the work, and that he need not be dependent upon interests of any kind to maintain his position in public life. If there is one thing above another which any man of spirit resents it is the thought of dependence in any form through the difficulties that beset the path of the public man who seeks to give all of his time freely and honestly to the country, and independently of any interests one way or the other. I think it is much in the public interest that in so far as may be possible members of Parliament and ministers of the Crown should be placed in the same position as we have placed judges, where they can be removed from any temptation, and feel free to discharge their duties in an honest and independent manner.
Now, Sir, I wish to repeat what I said when this subject was discussed on a
previous occasion. I think this is a matter which should not be regarded as a party matter. I would be the last man to speak if I thought for a moment that my attitude would be regarded as in any way an endeavour to make party capital. I wish to be understood as saying now what I have said to hon. members on this side of the House whenever we have discussed this matter among ourselves, namely that I thought it was one upon which every hon. member should express his own opinion freely and frankly and that it should not be made a matter of party controversy. It was to enable a full and frank discussion to be made that when the question was discussed the other evening on motion to go into Committee of Supply I made it perfectly clear to the House that I did not regard the matter a party one but hoped hon. members would speak out their minds frankly .and openly. Having taken that position at that time, I do not think at the moment that I would he justified now, nor do I think I would" be taking an honourable part, if knowing what the discussion has been, I introduced any motion which would cause the matter to be viewed as a party issue. But I wish to say that as a member of this House, I desire to express my mind just as freely as I expect every other hon. member to express his.
My position in a word is this: I think the indemnities should be increased, and that the salaries of the ministers and of the leader of the Government and the allowance to the leader of the Opposition should be increased. I express myself more freely in this because what I say in regard to the salaries of the ministers, I wish to apply equally to the salary of the leader of the Opposition. I think that -while these increases are justifiable on the merits of the case, they should not take effect during this Parliament, but should come into effect after a general election, when the country has had an opportunity to return to Parliament members in whom it has confidence under the new legislation as passed.
That, Mr. Chairman, in a word is my position. I wish to repeat that what I say in regard to indemnities and in regard to the salaries of the ministers, and of the Prime Minister, I say equally in regard to the increased allowance to the leader of the Opposition. According to my way of thinking none of these increases should take effect until another Parliament. I believe if that position is adopted by this House that the country will acquiesce in what is

proposed. But I do think the country feels that so far as the present Administration is concerned, it has Been far too long in office, that it ought to resign, and that there should be nothing in the way of inducement, even what might ipresumably be believed to be calculated to encourage this Parliament after the close of this session to remain in existence one hour longer than it is possible for it to do. If hon. members are anxious, or if the ministry are anxious to get the increases which are proposed, I would suggest that as soon as this session is over my right hon. friend take the course which I think he ought to take, and that is advise His Excellency the Governor General to have an immediate dissolution of this Parliament and allow the people to return to this (House representatives in whom they have confidence and an administration in whom they have faith and trust.	[DOT]


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I intervene under a kind of moral compunction at this moment in the debate, because I feel that I should exercise a cowardly role if I did not at once express my admiration of the unqualified courage of the Government, my entire agreement with what I take to be the unanswerable case put forward by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) and my slight want of admiration of what I take to be an illogical and wavering attitude on the part of the two hon. gentlemen (Hon. Mr. King and Hon. Mr. iCrerar) who have spoken on this side. With regard to the merits of the case, I do not think anyone could produce figures to prove that the case has no merits, and I am fortunate, in replying to the two speeches which have preceded mine, in not having to convince those two hon. gentlemen that the Prime Minister and I aTe right in thinking that this is a right thing to do, because they both say the same. They are in absolute agreement with us that what is proposed by the Prime Minister is a proper thing. Well, what is the argument which we have heard from my two hon. friends,



from whom I need not say that I differ with a certain amount of acuteness of pain. Their argument is that this is a proper thing to do, hut it is inopportune to do it now. I take it that a reasonable amount of logic would compel those hon. gentlemen to change their views at once to the position that the argument is entirely the other way. If it were a proper thing to do-and I venture to think that the best thinking people in Canada agree to that-then I should say that, as it is in regard to t'he bodily salvation and preservation of members of Parliament and senators, the argument used in Scripture in regard to the soul's salvation applies, that "now is the accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation."
The argument of my hon. friends that this is an inopportune time would be perfectly correct about a doubtful and unnecessary expenditure; but this is an expenditure which is for no less a purpose than the actual preservation in bodily health and activity and reasonable mental stability and health the highest of His Majesty's lieges who have been chosen to serve in the high capacity of legislators in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada. I repeat as to the inopportuneness of the time, the argument is all the other way.
I want to emphasize that just for a very few minutes. What is the highest and greatest function of Parliament? I take it that due regard to parliamentary history in the Old Country, this country, and the other parts of the Empire would lead one to answer that the very highest duty of Parliament is to provide supplies for His Majesty, as we term it in parliamentary language. And to what purpose do we devote those supplies? We devote them to the service of the public, to the Civil Service, to all manner of expenditures that are familiar to us, and to disbursements to various interests and individuals in the country. It so happens that amongst those individuals are included members of Parliament and senators, and I am not Uriah Heep enough to say that they should be excluded, because they are very human and they discharge functions which have at least some importance; I think the very highest importance in the service of the country.
*Supposing we propose, as we are proposing at this session of Parliament, an additional expenditure against which every consideration of economy would prevail just as much as it is said to prevail against the proposition of the ministry on this question. Supposing for instance, we propose to increase the salaries of civil servants. Would my

hon. friends come forward and say, on any of the grounds they have presented, that the time is inopportune? I pause for an answer. I venture to think that neither of them would for a moment take that attitude. Supposing an expenditure along any other lines is not only proper but necessary, would either of my hon. friends say that though it is necessary-and they say that this expenditure is necessary; they agree with us in principle-though it is justifiable, it is inopportune; we must not incur it now. I should say that average courage on the part of human beings, unless there is some ulterior motive behind their position-and I am sorry to suggest such a thing,-but the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Orerar) almost .laid himself open to the suspicion when he smiled and looked across the House and said: " Now I may not he taking a popular course in this chamber." The inference arose naturally in one's mind-I wonder if it can be in my hon. friend's mind-that by any chance he thought his course would be more popular elsewhere. I do not like to attribute motives, but the inference naturally arose in one's mind. I acquit my hon. friend, of course, of any suspicion on my part, because I know him so well. He is, however, a comparatively inexperienced debater and he lays himself open to a possible suspicion on the part of those who do not know him.
I understand that there is another attitude taken by my two hon. friends; 1 understood one of them at any rate to say that he would support this; that it was the right thing, but that it should take place only after an election. Why? An election cannot settle the rightness, or the wrongness of the matter. Unless you hold a plebiscite, you cannot tell what the majority of the people of Canada think. It is the responsibility of Parliament to provide supplies for His Majesty for any purpose that is right and proper. What would an election do in the case? I want to put this a little more strongly, and I should like to hear any one who takes the view of my hon. friends answer me on 5 p.m. this point. An election could not settle the question, and if it came to be a question as to the proper time to do it, I should say that the high moral and courageous course is on the part of men who do it when a Parliament is comparatively near its end. Of course it may be said that when we do this in the last session of Parliament, and especially if we do it according to the suggestion of

my hon. friend-I think the suggestion came only from the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King)-we would occupy a very high moral position. Unfortunately those of us who have committed ourselves to the usual constitutional practice have already deprived ourselves of any opportunity of occupying that high moral position. The only person who can occupy that high position who has spoken up to the present is the leader of the official Opposition, and I can congratulate him on any high moral eminence he attains by that attitude. But in my whole study of constitutional history, in regard to proposed legislation I cannot find any such case, and I should be glad if my hon. friend will supply me with cases. He does not answer, so he is apparently in the same position as myself. This proposition of his is an absolutely novel proposition; it is a proposition contrary to the proper discharge of the duties of Parliament. I repeat that an election could do nothing in the matter; we should be no wiser after am election than before. It has evem been proposed in some oases that this should not be done until after an election; that it should be done in a first session of Parliament rather than in a last.
I want to make this point in that regard: that the Parliament which votes this indemnity for possibly one session, having served a term, in the case of all of us, and in the case of many of us at great sacrifice, the Parliament which takes the attitude of saying: " We pass this at a time when we can get infinitesimally little advantage for ourselves," occupies a much higher position in every way in the eyes of the country than would people who came fresh from an election and said:	''Well, we need more
indemnity and we will take good care that we get it, because we shall have it in the first session and those who live will be sure of it for the term of this Parliament." I have tried to deal with every argument my hon. friends have presented, I think the Prime Minister's case is unanswerable, and I support the proposal on its merits, although I might have said a little more on that subject. When I came to this country I was positively shocked to think that I had come from ia country where John Burns, who in his youth served before the mast for a pound a week, was able to rise to the position of a Cabinet minister and earn $25,000 a year, to a country which-
I cannot help saying it has been impoverished by the foolish fiscal policy which it has followed, but it could be enriched by a 2S2i
wiser policy-pays its Prime Minister the magnificent salary of less than one-half of what John Burns, a sailor who raised himself to the position of a Cabinet minister, received. The same thing applies to the salaries of all Cabinet ministers in the Old Country as compared with our own. All the arguments that have been used by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), the facts presented, and the general sentiment of the country, are in favour of a large and courageous course upon this question. Personally, although unfortunately I am afraid for my electoral prospects some day or other, I always approach every question on principle and ask myself whether it is-right or wrong, and certainly if it is right I always want to take action immediately.. I say that even in regard to free trade; if that policy could be established now I would certainly have it put into effect without delay. Jn regard to the question of indemnity, I support the Government from the bottom of my heart and with a clear' conscience, and I leave my electoral fate to* my constituents, who after all have not failed to understand me as a half-decent fellow.


Ernest Lapointe: It is with a certain amount of diffidence that I rise to speak on this subject, which is a delicate one.


Mr. BELAND:: Not at all.


Ernest Lapointe: A French philosopher -Diderot, I think,-said once that when the artist thinks of money he loses his sense of beauty. This might possibly apply to public men. I have no doubt that it would be more pleasant if this question could be decided by a body quite independent of Parliament, the members of which would not have any direct interest in its decision. Unfortunately, under our system, that cannot be done, and the members of Parliament must settle this question. And they must settle it as any other question, on its merits. This proposed increase in the indemnity is either right or wrong. If it is right we must be in favour of it, and we must be in favour of it now. We must ask ourselves, and every one must ask himself, this question:	Is it possible, under
present circumstances, for any man who has a standing in his community and has the qualifications and the ability which should characterize a citizen who is deemed worthy to represent a constituency in this-House-is it possible for such a man to de- vote all his time to his public functions-and to the study of the numerous and very/ important questions that arise in this

House and in the country, especially today, when he receives the indemnity that is at present paid hon. members? Is it possible for him to pay conscientious attention to his public duties, with such an indemnity, without seriously impairing the means at his disposal to support his family?


Leonard Thomas Bland: That is the question.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; that is the question, as my hon. friend from Beauce says, and every one seems to be agreed that the indemnity is not sufficient for such a man as I have described. Then why not increase it? Why postpone the solution of this question?
I have read in the press objections to the proposal of the Government, and the critics say that there are members of this House who deserve a larger indemnity than the present one, while there are other members -who do not deserve such consideration because they are not diligent in their attendance. Well, is it fair or reasonable that, because of the shortcomings of some, those who are zealous in their attendance should be prejudiced? Parliament, as well as other institutions, * have the right to be judged by their best men. Is it .right therefore, is it reasonable, to penalize those members who are rendering faithful service to their country, who fulfil their own duties, because forsooth there may be some members who are not scrupulous? I think the question affords its own best answeT. I submit that the moment you admit that the members of Parliament who do not properly perform their duties are underpaid, then the system calls for a change, anld there is no other solution of the question.
It is said that this is only an indemnity and that members must possess other sources of revenue. Indeed, if members have only their indemnity at the present time to live on it is obvious that they have to look to other sources of revenue and must take some of the time which they should devote to their parliamentary duties for the purpose of looking after their own business, unless they are wealthy and can afford to pay others to look after their private interests. Is it a good thing for the country that Parliament should be composed only of men of the wealthy class? I think every one admits that it is not. But some people say that men can be found who would come here for $2,500. Indeed, Sir, men can be found who would come here for $1,000 or for $500. Is that the type of men that Canada wants as her legislators?
J/Mr. Lapointe.]


Jacques Bureau: Where would the country be?


Ernest Lapointe: I quite appreciate the fact that the finances of the country are in a grave condition. But let us look at France. Poor unfortunate France's finances at the present time are in a very serious state.


Leonard Thomas Bland: They are at the lowest
ebb.


Ernest Lapointe: Yet, in the month of
April this year, the Parliament of France increased the indemnity of its members from 15,000 francs to 27,000 francs per annum, or a little oven* $5,000 a year, and tall the real working men in that Parliament were the most ardent advocates of the increase. I read in the French press comments similar in character to the comments that are now appearing in the Canadian press. But, Sir, after the increase was granted in France every one admitted that it was the only way of properly treating the representatives of the French people and ensuring that they would be able to give adequate time to their parliamentary duties. There may be some force in the argument that this Parliament does not properly represent the people of Canada. It may not please my hon. friends opposite when I say that I believe this Parliament i,s not representative at the present time of the opinion of the large majority of the people of Canada. I believe that if there was an election this Government would be wiped out. But, Sir, when Gf wa6 selected as the candidate in Quebec East last fall the large majority of the electors of that constituency believed that this Parliament had no longer a mandate and did not represent the people of Canada but they did not say that they would not select a man to go there because the Parliament was not representative. They elected me for the purpose of coming here to fight the battle of my constituents and of the people and to endeavour to bring about the defeat of the Administration. I am trying to do the best I can. Until this is done this Parliament is the Parliament of Canada. I am not asked to vote for an increase of indemnity for this Parliament. X am asked to vote for an increase of indemnity to the members of the Parliament of Canada, future and present, and so long as we have to suffer the present Parliament-which I hope will not be for a long time-this Parliament will have to be considered as the Parliament de facto. I have nothing more to add except to repeat once more that the moment

you admit that the indemnity is not sufficient and that an increase is desirable, you must increase it. If it is right to grant the increase it is right to grant it now and it should be done now.
iMr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the keynote of the whole matter has been touched by the last two speakers and that is the question as to whether the action proposed or suggested by this Bill ie right or wrong. If it is right to increase the indemnity it is right to increase it now. Ilf it is wrong to inqrease the indemnity for this Parliament we have no right to increase it for another Parliament. It is impossible to argue in any other way. It must be dealt with entirely on its merits and if jt has merit, justice and fair play behind it, as 1 believe it has, it should be dealt with now and it should apply to this Parliament. Australia, when it dealt with this question and increased the indemnity of members from $3,000 to $5,000, considered it from the standpoint of what was right and proper and having concluded that it was right and proper to increase the indemnity from $3,000 to $5,000 the Australian Parliament did not say that the time was not opportune. The Australian Parliament said: "This should be done" and they did it. The provinces of Saskatchewan, Quebec, Alberta and several others have dealt with this matter in the same way. The legislatures of the provinces, which have increased the indemnity of their members considered the question on tits merits, I presume, and1 having come to the Icon-elusion that it was right, proper, fair and just that the indemnity should be increased, they increased it and made it apply to the members then sitting in the House. It seems to me that if any person admits that an increase is necessary or justifiable there can be no good reason for withholding or deferring it. I have not heard it questioned that the indemnity of $2,500 previous to the war was a just and proper indemnity for the members of this House. The press of the country has never questioned that nor has any person questioned it in this House. If that was true then, and if we admit, as we must admit, that forty or fifty cents would go as far in purchasing power before the war as a dollar will go now, and if the $2,500 was admitted to be fair when a dollar was worth a great deal more than it is to-day, how can any person argue that the present indemnity is fair and just now? No person has argued that.	.
The hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) both say that the indemnity is not fair and just at the present time. But the leader of the Opposition sayts we should not increase this indemnity except to make it apply to the next Parliament. The hon. member for Marquette takes a very peculiar position. He admits that the present indemnity of members and the present salaries of ministers of the Crown are not right, just, and fair, but he takes the peculiar attitude of saying that while he does not favour applying the increase to members who are not getting a fair and just indemnity, he wants the increase applied to ministers at once. That strikes me as a most illogical and peculiar position. What justification has my hon. friend for taking that position? He can speak feelingly of the matter 'because .he occupied the position of a Cabinet minister. What he said was perfectly true. As my hon. friend from Marquette says, if you want the 'best brains in the Cabinet of the country you must give some encouragement in the way of increased remuneration. We have instances of men who formerly held positions in the Cabinet, and were supposedly men of superior intellect, like the hon. member for Marquette, finding it to their advantage to leave the Cabinet and attend to other business which brought them in more salary. We had the further instance of the hon. member for Leeds ('Sir Thomas White), formerly Minister of Finance, who very frankly told the House that he could not carry on at the salary paid to a Cabinet minister. He did what he had a right to do, and he gave up the portfolio of Minister of Finance for a position which brought him a salary more in accord with his attainments and ability I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, a powerful company occupying a very strong position in Canada which not very long ago saw fit to increase the salary of its president from, I think, $10,000 to $15,000. They brought the matter before the president and said: "We think you should have an increase in salary." The president of that company did not tell them that he thought they were quite right but that the time was inopportune and that the increase should not apply to the present president, but should only apply to his successor. The president of that company did not take that attitude, but acquiescing in the judgment of those who had the matter in hand that an increase of salary was commendable, he agreed with

them that the increase should apply at once.
I want to mention one or two reasons why I support this increase in the indemnity. The members of the provincial legislatures receive for their services in
sessions of six, eight, or nine weeks $211, 600 a year more than is paid to the members of this House for attending to the matters that come 'before it. Let me illustrate that by inviting the attention of the House to the following statement:



SESSIONAL INDEMNITIES PAID TO MEMBERS OF THE PROVINCIAL AND DOMINION PARLIAMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Province.	Number Members of Prov. Par.	Sessional Indem.	Total.	No. Members of H. of Commons at $2,500 each.	Total.$	$	$43	1,000	42,000	16	40,000New Brunswick	47	1,000	47,000	11	27,50030	500	15,000	4	10,00080	2,000	160,000	65	162,500111	1,400	155,400	82	205,00055	1,500	82,500	15	37,50059	1,800	106,000	16	40,00058	2,000	116,000	12	30,000B. Columbia	47	1,600	75,200	13	32,500Yukon	1	2,500529	799,100	235	587,500
I do not think that anybody would question that the members who sit in the Dominion Parliament have far more complex and weightier questions to deal with than have the members, in any of the provincial legislatures; and yet for example, the members from Alberta sitting in this House-representing exactly the same territory and exactly the same population as do the provincial members-'are 'giving to itibase weightier questions, and for sessions running from four to seven months, for $30,000 whereas $116,000 is paid in indemnities to the members of the legislature in that; province.
Now, Sir, may I direct the attention of hon. gentlemen for a moment to this fact. There are in 'the various provincial legislatures 529 members and in this House 235 members. Taking the different provinces, that represents an average of from two to qeven members in ithe provincial legislature representing exactly the same territory and exactly the same people as are represented in this House by one member. For example a federal member from the province of Alberta represents a certain constituency and a certain number of people and for his services receives $2,500. In the provincial legislature the same territory and the same people are represented in the legislature by five members who receive for their services $10,000, although acting in a restricted field as compared to this House and dealing with questions not nearly so weighty as are dealt with here. On the face of it that is not fair; I do not think any person will say for a moment that it is.
Now let me call attention to some further facts. When I entered this House in 1908 I was occupying the position of clerk of Frontenac county. As a matter of curiosity I thought I would make inquiry and see what had been done by that county since that time in regard to the remuneration of the county councillors and county officials and what do I find? I find, Mr. Speaker, that the salary of the county clerk-the position which I formerly held-hais been increased since 1908 by 172 per cent, the salary of the county treasurer has been increased by 50 per cent and the salary of the caretaker of the county buildings has been increased by 80 per cent, or an average increase for the three county officials of 90 per cent since 1908 when I entered this House. I also find that the 'pejr capita cost of the remuneration of the county councillors for attending the sessions of the county council and for attending committees-which is only for a short time-has increased by one-third, since 198. How about the per capita cost of
[Stage Direction]
the proposed increase in the indemnity to members of this House? What addition does it make to the cost to the people? This
increase, as regards both the House of Commons ain'i the Senate, means 3A cents per head of the population of the Dominion. Three and a half cents per head of the population, that is what it means-the price of a postage stamp to each individual in the country.
Sir, I want for a moment toi pass to another matter. Since this question has been raised in the House-more particularly since it was first introduced a few days ago -certain members of the press in this country have directed their pens in opposition to any increase in the sessional indemnity. In so doing have they been actuated by a sense of fair play? I do not think, Sir, that they have. These writers who occupy the position of reporters in the press gallery have been actuated by a sense of personal spite or pique. They have been disgruntled, in the first place, ever since they were excluded from the corridors of this Chamber. Then something happened in connection with the restaurant and they were further disgruntled over that; and I have it on good authority that they have made a compact, an agreement, amongst themselves Whereby they are going to try and get even by abusing and misrepresenting the members of this House on every occasion that pleases them. These are the gentlemen who to-day are endeavouring to tell the members of this House and the people of this country what is right land what is wrong. The attitude of the press ! We have such journals as the two Ottawa papers, and several others that I could mention, the Montreal Gazette particularly; they have not attempted to argue this question. They have not attempted to place reason before the people of Canada, as to whether this indemnity should or should not be increased. They have not proposed any reasons for or against; they have simply indulged in editorial abuse in regard to the matter, and that is all that they have done. But. what is their attitude? They say that this outrage should not be carried out, that this increase of three and a half cents per head of the population should not be imposed upon the people of this country. What has been the attitude of the press in regard to their own business? They have not hesitated to, double the price of their own newspapers-they have not hesitated in regard to that. They have not hesitated to increase thei.r advertising rates-not at all. They hare not hesitated to come to this
House and get down on their knees and beg for favours in regard to newsprint supply; they have not hesitated to come to this House and ask members to place them in a privileged position-indeed as they have been placed in a privileged position foT years-necessitating the people paying for the carriage of newspapers from one end of Canada to the other at a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the public treasury. These newspapers have not paid their own way in the past yet they have not. hesitated to come to this House and beg for favours, regardless of the cost to the treasury of Canada. The Montreal Gazette is assuming for one to criticise the increase in indemnity. In this connection let me tell you what the Montreal Gazette has got out of this country in the last five years. I put a question on the Order Paper a while ago land here is the answer to it. How much do you suppose the Montreal Gazette has obtained from the Government of Canada for advertising and job printing? No less ,a sum than $412,341.14. That is what the Montreal Gazette has got out of this country. You can take the Ottawa Journal in the same way. Ever since they moved down to their new building they have had part of that building rented to the Government for Government offices; and I will venture to say that they have obtained in rent from the Government, simply for renting a portion of that building, sufficient to pay the whole cost of the putting up of the structure. These are the people who, through their half-baked reporters in the press gallery, are now endeavouring to tell the people of this country what is right and what is wrong in Connection with this matter. But they do not attempt to argue it from the standpoint of right or wrong, or upon the basis of merit or demerit; they discuss it simply from the standpoint of their own personal pique and their desire to get even for some fancied grievance which they have against members of this House.
Now in so far as the matter of an increase in the indemnity is concerned, II want to say this to the leader of the Opposition. My hon. friend took no exception to the proposed increase in the salary of the leader cf the Opposition. In that respect his course was perfectly logical because-
'Mr. MACKENZIE, KING: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I said most distinctly that I thought the increase of salary as respects the leader of the Opposition should not go into effect during the life of this Parliament.
Mr. EDWARDS:: Very good, I am conning to that. The hon, gentleman took no exception Ito the (leader of the Opposition getting the amount which is proposed, but he said it should not 'apply during this Parliament. (He also said that this increase Should not apply to members of Parliament. Very good. Now, I hold a different view in Tegard to itSbalt, and I have given some of the reasons (why 1 hold that view. I can Quite understand my hon. friend1 the leader of the Opposition holding the vieiw he does, as I can -also understand certain other (hon. members holding the same view. But they have the remedy entirely in itihieir own bands. If this Bill passes this (House-and I believe it will-I shall expect the leader of the Opposition will absolutely refuse to take the increase during the remainder of the term of this Parliament, and that ;any other hon. gentlemen who. share Ithe view held Iby the leader of the Opposition will also refuse to take 'this increase until after the next general election. They cannot do otherwise and toe consistent.
If my bon. friend the leader of the Opposition takes that course, he will toe acting very differently to his predecessor (Mr. McKenzie), because that hon. gentleman last year took advantage of a technicality in the Act to pull down some $19,000 for himself in the way of sessional allowance and sessional salary. It was never intended (that 'the $7,000 salary to the leader of - the Opposition should apply to each session; it was. meant to' place the holder of that office on, the same (basis as *a Cabinet minister. But there were two sessions last year, and there toeing something weak in (the wording of the law, my hon. friend .from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) took advantage of the technicality and availed himself of the full amount,. Well, we will see wha't the present leader of the Opposition will do. If he is consistent he will not take that increase until after the next electi'onr-and I doubt very much if he will take any of it after the next election, because I do not think he will get back here.
Now, so far as I am .concerned I am going to give my support to this Bill for the reasons 1 have, stated. I asm prepared to go before nay electors and give them the reasons why I think this increase should be granted. In fact, only yesterday I was speaking to about 300 of my electors, and the first thing I .took up was this subject of increasing the sessional indemnity. I placed before them (the reasons why I

thought the indemnity should he increased -some of which reasons I have stated' here this afternoon-and nolt a single man uttered one word of dissent or showed disapproval of the course (which I said I intended to take im regard to, this .matter. Of course, I am in a fortunate position, for I represent a constituency composed of exceptionally fine people. Some hon. gentlemen are not so. fortunately placed, and consequently they approach this matter with a certain amount of fear and trembling. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) .thinks that his people will hardly stand fox 'this increased indemnity to the members of the present Parliament. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) takes, the same position. Of course, they have got to look alt this according as their people will view it. I am looking alt it from 'the standpoint of what I think iis right, and knowing that the people of 'the county of Erontenac are a particularly 'brainy and sensible lot, I am quite certain they will approve of my course in supporting this Bill,


Rodolphe Lemieux: earn a living, and with sessions lasting five, six and seven months it is impossible, with the present indemnity, to cope with the situation. I am ready to make far more severe the present riders in the Bill with regard to attendance in order that there may 'be secured for the House of Commons and thereby for the people of Canada a regular attendance of representatives of the people.
As the member for 'Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) said a moment ago, the increase of the indemnity to $4,000 will give to constituencies the right and the privilege to select the best men (as their representatives. There is another reason, and to me it is the foremost reason, why the indemnity should be increased. I have had some experience in public life. I have taken part in election after election, and I am convinced that if there is one thing that I prize; if there is one thing that should be jealously guarded, it is the independence of Parliament. Sir, I do not wish the members of Parliament to be the creatures of big interests. I do not wish the members of Parliament to rely on a party fund coming .from mysterious sources. I want the member of Parliament to be independent, as he states himself to be in the oath which he takes when he comes to this House. The increased indemnity will do away for all time to come with the party fund at election times. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, on that score, will be the first to benefit by the increased indemnity to members of Parliament as the opposition candidates will stand equal chance with government candidates. I am not lecturing my hon. friend to my left (iMr. Mackenzie King). I am saying, Sir, that this is a move towards freedom of expression of public opinion. The independence of Parliament will be secured by the adoption of this measure. Let us extirpate the corruption which the party fund at a general election engenders, creates and perpetuates. A party gets funds to elect its candidates. The men who contribute to that party fund expect that the members elected, in return for the aid received will do the bidding of those who have paid the election expenses. .Sir, I am right in saying that with the increased indemnity the party fund will be a thing of the past and if for no other reason, the people of Canada would approve of the action of Parliament, in that regard.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Eecess.
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
THIRD EEAD'IN'G®.
Bill No. 212 from the Senate for the relief of Mildred Euphemia Alsina Martin.- Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 213 from the Senate for the relief of Arthur John Frankling.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 214 from the Senate for the relief of Nelson Alexander Boylen.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 215 from the Senate for the relief of Mahala Burton.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 216 from the Senate for the relief of Joseph Henry Forbes.-iMr. Boyce.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister, for the second reading of Bill No. 219, to amend the Salaries Act and the House of Commons Act.
Roch Lanctôt: Mr. Speaker, I regret very deeply indeed what happened between your honour and myself this afternoon. However I find myself obliged to make another speech which, after all, is not a very disagreeable task, since I happen to be just now the most popular member in the House.
This afternoon the right hon. Prime Minister spoke on Bill No. 219. The right hon. gentleman's 'speech was not altogether identical with the one he delivered! on the 23rd inst. At that time I had reason to believe that the Prime Minister of the country would not bring down this legislation at the end of the session, since he is better apprised than any one else of the complete ruin to which Canada is reduced. However, on June 24, the day following, his party met in caucus. I was not present but I presume that a great many of the Prime Minister's followers must have forced him to /bring down this Bill with threats of a general strike in the House of Commons. I am fully persuaded that such is the explanation of the Prime Minister's action in presenting this legislation to Parliament to-day. On June 23 the right hon. gentleman's position on this question was the same as my own; we have heard it stated so often, both in the House and out of it, that we have no money for repairing wharves and for undertaking other necessary public wwks that it behooves us to practise economy.

For some time past we in this House have been constantly asked to economize and we should be all the more inclined to adapt a policy of thrift since we realize that Canada's position is growing, steadily worse.
The right hon.. Prime Minister made several comparisons this afternoon' to justify this measure. He spoke of the United States where the members of the House of Representatives receive $7,500 besides the services of paid secretaries. I admit that the members at Washington are well paid; however the Prime Minister omitted to mention that the number of American representatives is far below ours. There are only 43G members, of the House of Representatives and 96 members of the Senate, a total membership in Congress of 529 representatives for ia population of 105 million people; Canada has 235 members of the Commons and 92 Senators, a total membership in Parliament of 327. There upon our representatives number more than half those ia't Washington and we have a population of only 8,500,000. That is not all, Mr. Speaker. The United States have 17 billion dollars' worth of outstanding loans to foreign countries; Canada has nothing but debts in foreign countries; even in our own country the Government has not one single paying investment. So the Prime Minister's argument that Canada should pay her representatives as much as the United States pay theirs falls to the ground; we cannot afford to imitate the United ^States.
The right hon. gentleman spoke of Aus1-tralia where there are 75 commoners and 36 senators. It is time that Australia pays her representatives one thousand pounds; the fact remains, however, that Australia's economic stress is even greater than our own. You are well aware, Mr. Speaker, that ruin always overtakes 'those who squander their substance; those who do not want to fall behind are careful iwhat they spend.
Let us rsuppose, for instance, that Nova Scotia was a member of the Union; her population would entitle her, I believe, to two members of the House of Representatives. She has 16 members in the Canadian House. If she sent two representatives to Washington with a salary at $9,000 or $10,000 each, it would amount only to $20,000; but with representatives in this House, that represents $44,000 more-because, with the increased indemnity, 16 members will draw $64,000. Consequently, in proportion to population our representatives cost us six or seven times more than the representatives at Washington.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am rather pleased to address the House tonight. This afternoon I listened to three hon. leaders of this House and to 'three or four front benchers oif my own party and of the Agrarian party. I did not take much stock in the arguments advanced by these hon. gentlemen. I believe that 'the strongest argument o'f all will be the cheque for $3,040 instead of $1,540, at the end of the session-and I am going to prove it. In the first place, when we discussed this 'question last week it was stated in the House -it is often stated outside-'that if the members of Parliament were better paid the people would find better men to represent them. I am going to answer that argument immediately; I maintain that the facts are just the opposite; and to prove it I need go no further than Montreal. A by-election was held recently in St. James' riding in Montreal; is it not a fact that, with the salary at $2,500, the voters of St. James' division sent to this House the strongest man they could possibly find in Montreal?
Is it not a fact, moreover, that Mr. Rin-fret was opposed .by the strongest representative of labour in Montreal?
So, Mr. Speaker, when we are told that a higher salary will ensure the election of [DOT]better men to Parliament I reply that just the contrary is the case and I have proven it.
Now, even if it be true that an increase in salary is necessary, should this increase be made during the present session? When a business man has hired a elerk in his office for $2,500 and this clerk comes to his employer three or four days before his year is up and says: "I want an increase of $1,500 for the work I have done this year," what does the boss say? He says: "That is out of the question. Finish your year and I'll settle with you." Well, that is the position of hon. members in this House, for the present session at any rate. The session is over. It has already came to an end for several, since they have taken their trunks and gone back to their homes. So the argument that members of Parliament should receive more money does not. apply to the present session at least, because the session is over, and the amount allowed was $2,500.
A moment ago I mentioned the case of my hon. friend the member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret); I do not think that, in the course

of that by-election the people were consulted on the question of increasing the indemnity for next session. I do not think they were consulted at any of the by-elections held throughout the country, nor at the general election of 1917. So wlhy should we be told in this House that such and such a thing must be done, else we shall starve to death?
I have been here for 16 years, Mr. Speaker, and I know something about living in Ottawa. It is true that I aim rather staid. I do not live at the Chateau Laurier, but I have a good room; I take my meals at the Parliamentary restaurant; my expenses are not very great, and I can go back home with money in my pocket and rlook after the interests of my constituents as I have always done in the past. If a member wants to live at the Chateau that is his business; I congratulate him on being able to do so. If he can afford it, well and good; the man who cannot afford it does not go. there except to meet a friend.
Now, perhaps we shall foe told that a member of Parliament cannot live to-day on a salary of $2,500. I have never believed that to be the case, and I do not believe it yet. We all derive a certain income from other sources over and above our parliamentary indemnity; personally, if I were not content with the $2,500 I receive for representing the citizens of Laprairie-Napierville, I could easily go back home and the county could send another representative here.
I do not intend to detain the House very long, as I know the Government wants to wind up the session. When thiis Bill is in committee I am going to move an amendment.. I do not expect the House to adopt my amendment; however, I want my remarks to appear in Hansard, so that the people of my riding may know What I said concerning the increases in onr indemnity. I have often heard members of Parliament say that we should not be afraid. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to act as I do through fear of mv constituents. The past is there to prove that I am not a slave to fear. In my riding of Laprairie-Napierville I have waged suoh contests as a farmer can; I have defeated some very strong men in four general elections. I do not know what I shall do in the future, but when I am told that a man with an increased indemnity as a plank in his platform could be sure of winning the election in any one of the 65 ridings in Quebec province, all I say is that the ta.sk would be too strenuous

for any man. Besides, we shall soon have a chance to demonstrate; there will be a general election, if not in one month or six months, then in a year or .two years, and the man who wants to come down to my riding of Laprairie-Napierville and tell the voters that my position on this question was false can be a candidate and welcome. Now, certain of my hon. .friends on this side of .the House have stated several times that the salaries of the ministers in the present Government should be increased, right away. I do not share that opinion. If a company whose .business ran into the millions annually had employees who had almost reduced it to bankruptcy, would its directors be inclined to increase the salaries of these employees? For my part, I believe that the Government we have had since 1911, and particularly since 1917, have almost ruined us. For this reason, I am opposed to the increase of the salaries of the ministers. I think that if anything were done they ought to be reduced. But there is another way, as I said a minute ago-a desperate situation calls for desperate remedies-to settle this question of increasing the indemnity, and the others that are submitted to us. Wind up this session, go before the electors, and your humble servant will be glad to discuss with you in the county .of Laprairie-Napierville his. opposition to all the bad measures proposed by the Government. I would foe the last man to vote to ameliorate the position of the gentlemen on the right, and I think that the Liberals commit a grave error in ranging themselves upon the side of (these gentlemen on this question; the support they give them can only have the result of encouraging them to keep their positions as long as possible, for they know very well that the verdict of the people will he against them at the next general election. It is because of this that I cannot approve of, and do not like, this alliance.
Mr. HERBERT J. MACKIE (Renfrew North); The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has rather issued a challenge to any hon. member to dare to differ from the party in power on this question, and so with great deference to the hon. gentleman I may say at once that I shall partially accept that challenge even at the risk of incurring his wrath. I am in favour of this measure in so far as it affects the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the Cabinet ministers, but in so far as the increased indemnity to members

of the House of Commons and members of the (Senate is concerned, I am very much apposed to it. When we were asked to accept our nominations for Parliament in 1917, we knew quite well the amount of the indemnity, and even had that indemnity been only one-tenth of what it is, I doubt whether one member in this Chamber would have declined the nomination. Some no doubt would have stood up before their electors and told them they were making a .great sacrifice in accepting the nomination, while others would have declared that no matter what the indemnity they would accept the nomination from patriotic motives. And what happens now? We have the majority of those same members endeavouring to commercialize that patriotism and that sacrifice. A short while ago we witnessed a bloodless war when there came into vogue the expression "commercializing Christianity," but I think the term is quite applicable to-day in another sense. I have advocated with the support of some members, the advisability of dividing Canada into zones and paying the members from each zone a different indemnity scale, because I believe that those members who live in Ontario and Quebec constituencies near Ottawa who can spend comparatively so much time at home attending to their business should not get the same compensation as members from remote constituencies who seldom get home during a session. This is the hundred and twenty-fifth day since the opening of the session, and during that period this House has been sitting 83 days. Each member is allowed fifteen days' absence, and if you subtract that from 83 you will have 68 days as the actual number of days on which the House has sat, and hon. members living within a night's train journey of Ottawa *have had considerable time to spend with their families or to attend to their businesses. I suggested to certain brother members that Canada should be divided into zones, and that all the members residing west of the Great Lakes as well as all members residing east of Gaspe should receive the increased indemnity.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thank you.


Herbert John Mackie: The other
members who can arrive home from Ottawa on Saturday night at nine or ten or twelve o'clock, I think, ishould! wait for an increase until Parliament meets again or until a new Parliament is elected, before pressing the matter. We knew in 1917 when we were elected the cost of living in Ottawa,
and it is no more to-day to the majority of members than it was in the spring of 1918. I know, from good authority, that quite a number of members will go home with a clear profit of $2,000 from this session, besides having spent 57 days or more at home. While I do not think that the indemnity pays hon. members for their services, I do think it pays them for the time they spend here. There are certain gentlemen in this House, who, if they devoted their full time to their business would undoubtedly be able to secure large returns, but these very same men would come to Ottawa next Parliament if their remuneration were absolutely nothing, because they enjoy the life here and they enjoy the honour that goes with the position.
I wonder if the majority of the members realize that there are at least thirty members of Parliament living within five or six hours' journey of Ottawa. I have consulted with a number and they tell me, what I know is true, that their businesses and occupations have not suffered from their parliamentary service.
Take the Senate; we are going to boost them along too. The tail must go with the hide and it is a fact that we have at least ten Senators residing in Ottawa. They have given up their business in their districts and have come to Ottawa to reside permanently. Perhaps I may be exaggerating but I have been given to understand that such is the ease. I doubt if the public will take this proposition as kindly as some members say they will. We are told by the hon. member for Frontenac that he has consulted with his constituents. Unfortunately, I have none of that genial, modest, delightful, inoffensive mannerism that the hon. member for Frontenac has and I fear that I cannot quite make as much headway with my constituents as he says he has already made with his. My constituents will want to know how I stand upon this measure. I am sorry that the members of this House did not follow the wise judgment of our leader and defer the measure.
Much has been said about the press attack on this proposal. I did not leave it to the press and to their writings to guide me in forming my conclusions. I left it to my conscience. Some may smile at the thought that I have a conscience but it is certainly very strong on this question. I am very much opposed to this proposal.


Mr. J. W. KENNEDY (Glengarry and Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to

the measure now under consideration,- providing for an increase in the sessional indemnity, I understand that a large number of the members expressed themselves with regard to it on a former occasion when it was discussed in the House.
'I wish to avail myself of this opportunity however to make my views known. A great many reasons have been advanced by hon. members in favour of the increase in our statutory indemnity. These reasons have been supported by arguments which appear to me to be well founded but yet I am not in a position either to confirm them or to refute them. I am a new member. This is practically the first session I have attended. I have not been able to take as great a part in the deliberations of this assembly as those who have been here longer and that is one reason why I would feel great hesitancy about attempting Ito increase my own indemnity. I realize that my position is quite different from that of the vast majority of the members because my constituency is not very far away from Ottawa and I am able to spend the week ends at home. On the other hand, when I accepted the responsibility which my constituents placed upon me, I did so with the full knowledge of the condition and of the indemnity to he allowed. In doing that I feel to all intents and purposes I am under a contract with my constituents to represent them in this House for the remainder of the parliamentary term. I feel that I am in honour bound to abide by that tacit agreement and for that reason I am not able to lend my support to the proposed measure.


Edmond Proulx: 
Mr. H. A. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: If -this matter were deferred would the -hon. gentleman be willing to make it an issue at the next general election with his constituents and would he be willing to take the position before his constituents -that he did not want any increase?


Edmond Proulx: I am very much in the
position of the hon. member for Glengarry and Stormont (Mr. Kennedy). I cannot compare my position with that of the majority of the members of this House. I represent a constituency which is close at hand. I can therefore go home quite often and attend to my business. I can do that to a far greater degree than can most of the members of this House. Personally I would be satisfied to continue to serve -at the present indemnity, but I cannot say that that indemnity is fair and adequate for the majority of hon. members. For instance, take the case of my hon. friend who has just asked me a question. He lives in the province of Alberta far distant from Ottawa. I certainly could not compare my position to his on this question.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR (Guysborough):: I
should like to avail myself of the opportunity of briefly stating my views on the question before the House, and I regret to say that I differ to some extent from a great many hon. gentlemen on both sides. We have been invited to give a frank expression of our opinion on the matter of an increase in the indemnity and I think it is our duty to do so. I respect the views of those hon. members who differ from me, -and I trust they will give me credit for being honest and sincere in my opinions. The responsibility for the proposed legislation-, in so far as it relates to the increase of salaries and increase in the indemnities, -belongs to the Govern-

menit who have undertaken to place the matter before the House. At the same time all of us have a certain amount of responsibility in connection with it, and when the Government is taking such a step no hon. gentleman should refrain from expressing his views with respect to it. For my part I do not wish to make any political capital out of the proposition for an increase in the sessional indemnity; in fact I was so anxious not to do so that when I learned that this matter was being seriously considered by the Government I wrote to the Prime Minister so that he might learn what my views were before taking the final step. I agree with what has been said to the effect that the indemnity is too small and that a very strong case has been made out for an increase. The only difficulty I have is in giving effect to the increase at the present moment. There are very strong reasons-notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) and others-why we should hesitate to make this increase applicable to the present Parliament. It is undoubtedly true that there is a certain amount of unrest in . the country. We have imposed pretty heavy taxes on the common people within the past few days; we have all been calling out for economy; and we have to return home and face the returned soldiers in our constituencies who have made a claim for an increased gratuity. Whether that claim is a proper one or not, many of the returned soldiers are of the opinion that it is. A great many of these men fought overseas for three or four years at $1.10 a day and they think that they ought to receive from the country an increased gratuity. I feel rather sensitive about returning home with a cheque representing the increased indemnity in my pocket and having to explain to these men that we were not able to accede to their request. These are some of the difficulties that I have in mind with regard to this question. I must frankly say that my views, to a large extent, coincide with those of my leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). I think we could very properly, at this stage, agree that the indemnity should be increased, but we will escape all the reproaches of the kind to which I referred by making that increase applicable to the next Parliament. Those men who are candidates for election in the next Parliament can then come before ithe electors and tell them what their views are on this question, and if elected they will have the necessary mandate. That is the way
I feel about this matter, and I thought it only right that I should frankly state my opinions to the House. I have nothing further to say except that I support the course of my leader on this question.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: I think I would be derelict in my duty if I did not at this time express my views on the question which is before the House. I believe my electors would feel more inclined to criticise me if I remained silent instead of standing boldly up and supporting the resolution as I propose to do. In taking this stand I am co-operating with other hon. members from the province of Saskatchewan who have supported this proposition. The inference to be drawn from their course is that the Saskatchewan members feel themselves big enough men, and sufficiently sure of their ground, and feel that the people appreciate their services to that degree that they are willing to pay them an adequate remuneration for the services they perform, or are supposed to perform, in the House of Commons. It is from the province of Alberta, of which the hon. member for Red Deer is a representative, that the most positive statement upon this question has emanated. The representative of the constituency of Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) has also taken a very decided stand, likewise other hon. gentlemen. In the case of Assiniboia-while the sentiment may not be as positive-I am co-operating with the representatives from Saskatchewan and Alberta in this matter. Passing to the province of Manitoba we have had an expression of opinion from the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) but it has not been quite as positive as in the other cases to which I have alluded. The sentiment of the Saskatchewan representatives upon this matter of increased indemnity, to my mind, only goes to prove that the farther west you go the bigger the men. When we come to the province of Ontario we find a certain amount of fear and trembling among some of its representatives; they are five-hundred-dollar men and consequently you get five-hundred-dollar politics.


Herbert John Mackie: That is a blow in the solar plexus.


Oliver Robert Gould: That seems rather a b.ild statement to make, but I have no sympathy with hon. members who, while acknowledging that the indemnity ought to be raised, plead that this is not the opportune time to do it. To my mind that is a very weak argument. Are they asking this Govern-

ment to assume the responsibility for the actions Of the next Government? Let the next Government, if they choose, rescind this legislation; they will have an opportunity of doing so. Let the next Government take the responsibility far their own action, just as this Bouse is proposing to do. As I say, such an argument is very weak; and I am surprised that some hon. members who have occupied seats in Parliament for so long a period should attempt to advance such feeble excuses. The only interpretation I can place upon their course is that they see an indirect way of deriving political benefit from it. I do not believe that at any time in our history any individual has been elected ot defeated on the issue of the sessional indemnity. I am sure that at the next election the issues will far transcend in importance such a question as a difference of $1,500 in that indemnity. If not, the people will have very little to debate about. When the question of the increase first came to my notice I availed myself of the opportunity to send not less than one hundred letters to my 'Constituency in ordeT to ascertain their opinion on the subject. Of all the replies which I received only one was in the negative. In that communication the ground was taken that the Government should go to the country and until that time the increase of indemnity should be held in abeyance because the writers did not think the present Government were worth the increase. Should an early appeal to the people be imminent no doubt a delay in carrying out this policy would be proper; but we have already been waiting an indefinite time far the Government to take that course and there is no sign as yet of their doing so. Therefore, I say that no one should ask that his fellowmen should remain in Parliament at a sacrifice -a sacrifice which is acknowledged by those who apologize for not giving immediate effect bo the increase as well as by those who support its immediate adoption.
Now, I do not think that I need take up the time of the House any longer. All has 'been said that can or should .be said for or against the resolution. I am sure that the people of the Dominion know this. The official organ from which I have received much of my politics has advocated this increased indemnity for the last six years. I have come down to help change things, if possible. I assume that that is what I am here for. That is why I take this stand on the indemnity question, because that is one of the things we are going to rectify, 
and I am glad to know that we are going to have a fair unanimity of opinion on this question.	.


Jacques Bureau: The House knows very well my views on this matter, Mr. Speaker, but there are a few things I want to correct. Yesterday, when discussing the salaries of the judges, my hon. friends from Laprairie (Mr. Lanc-tot) and Prescott (Mr. Proulx) made the statement that there was collusion between the two parties in this House to pass .bad legislation; and to-night my hon. friend from Laprairie, speaking to the question, said that "he had heard two or three of the big cannons of the parties to which he belongs." This leads me to believe that 'he belongs to one of the parties in this House, and as he sits on our side of the House, I assume that he belongs to one of those bad parties which is in collusion to rob the country. I resent that statement. If that is his position, he must be measuring others by his own yardstick. May I ask my two hon. friends whether in 1905 they were opposed to the increase of the indemnity from $1,500 to $2,500?


Leonard Thomas Bland: They were.


Jacques Bureau: Did they raise their voice against it?


Mr. DANCTOT:: .Mr. Speaker, in answer to my hon. friend I may say this: in 1904 I had just left my plough in the field to run as a candidate for a seat in this House, and I was not the man that I am to-day. I may say that I did not favour the increase of the indemnity in 1905, nor do I favour it to-day.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend did not
favour the increase of the indemnity in 1905. For fifteen years, .against his wish, with those strong principles that he advocates and that make him ashamed of both sides of this House, he has kept in his pocket $15,000 of the people's money, which he claims we robbed, and he robbed with us. Consistency! Why Mr. Speaker, if there is any consistency in the hon. gentleman that $15,000 ought to be in the coffers of the country. May I exclaim: Consistency, thou art a jewel! Furthermore: Honesty, thou art not a vain word!
I want to show that some of these gentlemen who come here and pose as angels and models of virtue by saying that they do not want the indemnity, have been taking it and using it. There is not a dissentient voice in this House as to the desirability .and the need of having this indem-

ity. My hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. Maekie) admitted that it was necessary, but on one 'Condition-there is .always a "but"-divide Canada into zones; let the Western members have $4,000, and let those who are in close proximity to Ottawa have less. That is a good idea, he thinks. It may be a good idea, but I do not share his views, and every man is entitled to his own views on the question. If it is good for the man who lives west of lake Superior, it is equally as good for the man who lives east of the Ottawa river. What is the difference? We are all on the same footing. Men who live west of lake Superior do not render greater service to their country than men who live east. The western men make greater sacrifices, I admit, as they are away from their families and their business. Every one admits that the principle of the thing is good, and every one says the increase has become a necessity.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr Crerar) says: I am willing that the law regulating the increase of the salaries of the ministers should take effect now, but not the law regulating the increased indemnity to members. I must confess that I do not see the logic of the position taken by him and by other hon. members. If the thing is as good as my hon. friend from Red Deer and others say it is, let us put it into force at once. A good thing cannot be placed on the statute book too soon. I have expressed my views on that. I have had occasion, Mr. Speaker-and I say it with all deference, for we do not share the same views-of criticising bad laws that have been placed on the statute book. But when I see a good law going on the statute book I am glad to give it my support.
Now a word en passant. I think I have never complained about statements made by the press, but in this case I think we have been misrepresented. The motives of the gentlemen of the press I do not discuss. It is their business to enlighten public opinion. But I think before they impute motives to others, before they tell us that we should have some self-respect, those gentlemen ought to make a little examination of their conscience. I remember when anxiety was on every face in this country, when we were at the most crucial moment of our history. You talk about returned soldiers who have fought at the Front; I bow to them and they have my admiration; but I remember when the fate of civilization was in the balance; we wanted money, and we wanted men; we had to advertise for loans and we had to advertise for re-283



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
cruits. The papers were full of patriotic sentiments. Did these gentlemen give space in their papers for nothing? We had a return from the Minister of Finance that every advertisement for those loans was paid for. Let the gentlemen of the press examine their consciences and talk about self-respect when they give us an explanation of the reason why, when this country was at that crucial moment of her history, they did not care to refuse the money that was paid to them. I ask the Minister of Finance: have any of those gentlemen paid back that money to the public treasury? I do not know if they have, but the last return that came to the House showed that they had not.
Another point my hon. friend from La-prairie made. He said: if you are not satisfied with $2,500, stay at home. Why, the country can better afford to lose my hon. [DOT]friend from Laprairie than it can afford to lose the man who thinks he is worth $4,000 and who should come to this House and initiate good legislation. We had an example of what my hon. friend's services are worth. On Bill 218 this afternoon he started to argue on Bill 219-an evidence of the deep interest and the close watch he keeps on the legislation that is being considered. He had to apologize for his oversight. If cmy hon. friend is always off the trail like that, I think he had better give pilace to a four-thousand-dollax man.
My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwiards) gave advice to my hon. leader. I think I may tstate that I know what the position and the intentions of my hon. leader are, and I may tell the hon. member from Frontenac that he may hold his peace, for be certainly will not receive the difference in indemnity if it does not go into the pocket of my hon. leader. I think, Sir, we ought not to try to teach lessons to anybody on this thing. I am going to support the bill in toto. I support the increase of salaries to the ministers because I think they deserve it. If there is anything that I reproach myself for it is that when we were in power we did not tackle this question of increasing the salaries of the ministers. They are very much underpaid as are hon. members also. If I have -any Objection to urge against the resolution-and I will be candid-it is that the increase of indemnity does not go far enough. I believe that men who sit in this House; men who are willing to work for *their country

although that suggestion was challenged when I made it before- ought to get $5,000. My hon. friend made

[Stage Direction]
a comparison with the United) States. He pointed out that while the United States senators are getting $7,000, plus an allowance for a secretary, the United States has a much larger population than Canada. But that is not a proper comparison to make. Let us make a comparison of the indemnity to memhers of the Federal Parliament with the indemnity to memhers of provincial legislatures. The province of Quebec, with eighty-two members, pays its provincial representatives $2,000, although, as the right hon. leader of the House pointed out to-day, the sessions of the legislature last only four or five weeks -six weeks at the most. That is the proper basis upon which to make comparisons.
Now, I shall say no more. I could say a good deal more, but if I become carried away with the force of my convictions on the subject I shall occupy too long the attention of the House. I take this position conscientiously; it is what I firmly believe; I am ready to stand by it; I am willing toi defend my position before any body of intelligent electors. My hon. friend from Laprairie has threatened to take the stump in the province of Quebec and to denounce our attitude on this question. Well, I extend to him a special public invitation to come down' to the city of Three Rivers and to the town of Shawini-gan, and we will give him a whoop of a reception.
Roch Lanctôt: Pardon me for a moment, Mr. Speaker. I will say this to the hon. member for Three Rivers: I am willing to go into your.county-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to postpone the remarks I hoped to make upon this Bill until it got into committee, but some things have been said quite recently in connection with it which make it advisable, I think, for me to say a word at this stage.
I very seldom envy the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), but I must say I envied him to-day, because he has received fresh light so recently upon a dfficult subject-. A few days ago I listened to the right hon. gentleman when he stated that he thought that although the indemnities should be raised, the present time was not an opportune time to raise them. I thoroughly concurred in what he said, and I thought that the whole question was settled. I was -somewhat interested the other night and to-day to listen to a very

strong speech from him in support of an increased indemnity. What I sincerely regret is that I have not received any information with regard to what led the Prime Minister so completely to change his mind. It is contrary to my nature and certainly to my disposition and desire to be hesitating about a question, and certainly this is a question on which there is so much to be said on both sides that any one who -speaks should, I think, be charitable -to those who do not take the same position as he does.
Now, I believe, and believe -most emphatically, that -the indemnity paid to members of this House is too low. The member who- honestly carries out his duties in this House is not indemnified by $2,500. There are some, of course, who pay little attention to the work of the House, but I do not think that those who do their duty should suffer through that fact. The people of Canada should not expect them to do so, because it is the people's fault if those in the House are not of the proper calibre to fulfil their functions a3 legislators. But there are other considerations, and just for a moment let me briefly touch upon them.
In addressing the House on this occasion I do -so in a spirit of the greatest moderation. I differ from others on this question, not on a matter of principle but on a matter of expediency. I know that some of my friends will be shocked at that, because I have endeavoured not to be guided by expediency in what I have done in public life. I hesitate to express my views on this subject, because I know how generous has been the service, how sincere the devotion, how great the ability that has been lavished upon the country by many members who support the Government in this present proposal. But let me answer the argument addressed by the member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark). He said: "Now is the accepted time: now is the day of salvation." Might I reply to him in the words of the great apostle that although all things may be just, yet "all things may not be expedient", and that we should be careful to see that even our good be not evil spoken of.
Now, why do I support the view taken by my honourable leader (Mr. Mackenzie King)? I do it for this reason; because although I am thoroughly convinced that the indemnity is too low, the information that I have from the electors whom I represent in this House is to the effect that they would prefer to have an opportunity of discussing the matter before it

becomes law. In other words, they think that this increasing of indemnity should not take place until after a general election. Now, that may be wise or unwise on the part of those electors, but when
9	p.m. the matter is one in respect of which those whom I represent are on one side and I as the proposed recipient of an increase am on the other, it seems to me that in such circumstances I must resolve every doubt against myself. Let me suppose that I am acting on a yearly retainer for a client and under that yearly retainer I have the right if I desire, to raise my own remuneration. I would not like to do so without consulting my client and giving him an opportunity of setting forth his views. It may be a matter of sentiment; it may be quixotic, but so far as I am concerned, glad as I would be to have the money, I do not wish to increase my own indemnity without giving the electors who elected me in the past and whom I hope to go back to in the future an opportunity of making their wishes known.
The member for Red Deer said; "How will an election settle the question?" Well, an election will settle the question in this way. In an election in this country, especially in the rural parts, candidates go from country school-house to country school-house; the minglle freely with the electorate; and every opportunity would be given to the electorate to state to the candidates whether they were in favour of or against an increase in the indemnity. There are two ways in which this might be done. Of course,-the best way-and I desire to impress this on the Government-would be to pass the legislation and forthwith go to the people for approval of their legislation in this matter as well ais in all matters. That would be one way to do it; the other way would be to have the indemnity become effective after the next general election, when the next Parliament is summoned1.
An hon. MEMBER; It was not done that way in 1905.
Mr. MdMASTER: That may be. I am not saying that members who do not agree with me are wrong. This is a matter in which honest men, sincere men, unselfish men, may take one side or the other. But I say we must not forget that the financial position of the country to-day is very different from what it was in 1905, and that, therefore, still greater care is required.


Robert Laird Borden: How does that affect the principle?
Mr. MeMASTER: I do not know whether it affects the principle, but it affects what you might call the sentimentalities of the situation. The Prime Minister shrugs his shoulders and smiles. He may be quite right; but if he was quite right to-night, he was quite wrong the evening before last. I do not, however, want to discuss this matter with any heat. I quite realize that my view m'ay be mistaken; that those who hold different views from mine may be right; but after all a man has to follow his own irisiinct in a matter of this sort, and my instinct is to consult my electorate before I raise my indemnity.


Mr. BOYER:: By what means will the hon. member consult his electorate?
Mr. MoMASTER: By an election. I follow the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), although this is not ia party question at all, in the view that the electorate should have an opportunity of declaring themselves before this legislation goes into effect. There is, however, this consideration which I wish to bring before the House. I am quite convinced by arguments which have been advanced An this debate and also from information that has come to me from other sources, that there are in this House members, especially those who live in remote parts of this country, who absolutely need the money. The cost of living has increased very substantially since we were elected in 1917, certainly since some of us were nominated early in 1917. Under those circumstances I would apply the same principle as has been applied to the Civil Service, and I think it would be proper and fitting that a bonus be granted. I would not be too niggardly in regard to that bonus. Those are my sentiments honestly expressed, I trust, expressed without heat, and with no desire to make political capital nor to hurt the feelings of any one.
Let me close by referring to a remark made by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), who reproached an hon. member because, after having been against .the last rise in indemnity, that member had taken the larger sum. I do not think that is a just or a generous criticism.


Roch Lanctôt: There was no opposition at all.
Mr. McMA'STER: Whether it was opposed ot not I do not think that is a generous or just position. We are here as members of a deliberative assembly; we discuss matters, and the rule is that the

majority mast prevail. Therefore, after the majority has decided, it seems to me that it is the proper thing for every one to fall in line and accept the position carried by the majority, unless it is a matter of strong principle against which a man should battle and battle evermore, and I dp not believe this question is Of that nature. I trust I have submitted these considerations with sobriety and quietness. I do this in a spirit of absolute cordiality with every one; I realize quite frankly that I may be wrong, but I would not have felt comfortable in this debate had I not expressed my views which I honestly and sincerely hold.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: 
William Stevens Fielding: 
Robert Laird Borden: 
Jacques Bureau: That is mean.


Robert Laird Borden: Just one or two words with regard to some arguments that have been put forward. The hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Maickie) has supported another Bill in 'this House, the Bill with regard 'to judges, and he is prepared to support the provisions of this Bill with regard to rfiinisters' salaries. But as regards himself, he .accepted nomination and election upon a certain basis, and he thinks that basis, should not be disturbed during the term for which he was elected. I should like to. point out to my hon. friend .and other hon. gentlemen who have advanced the same view, fhiait precisely 'the same .argument might be made with Tegard to judges .and ministers. Every one of those judges accepted appointment to the bench at a certain salary, and if the argument which has beer put forward is good so far as members are concerned, then it is equally good with regard to judges. It would apply also to ministers, because we all accepted the positions which we now hold upon a certain scale of remuneration. If the argument advanced were carried out in practice it would never be possible for any ministry to make a proposal to the House of Commons for the immediate increase of salaries; any increases would have to be restricted to future judges and future ministries. Some other hon. gentlemen have apparently reached the conclusion that any such question as. this should be submitted in some way to the electorate. May I say to my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) that he did not very fairly quote me in referring to my remarks of the other evening. What I said to the House was this-I siaid it this afternoon and I say it .again- that before coming to .a conclusion in regard to this proposal the House ought carefully and seriously to consider the question as to opportuneness of time. But I said also this afternoon that the question whether this was or was not an opportune time, was not in my opinion an absolutely controlling and determining factor. I am inclined, after listening carefully to the debate, to concur in the view of those who have urged that when once you admit that the indemnity of members of this House is too low you have given the whole case away. Not much else remains to be said with regard to it. How do you propose to make this an issue at an election?
Does any hon. gentleman in this country seriously propose that an election should be held in Canada upon the question as to whether members of Parliament ought to be paid an indemnity of $2,500 or an indemnity of $4,000? The idea seems to be preposterous. You could not make this an issue at an election. Surely so long as the Canadian people have the vision, the outlook and the intelligence which they possess today, and devote their attention to the great issues of public affairs as in the past, they will find some bigger issue .at any general election than that which I have just .stated. So that you could never make any question of this kind .an issue at a general election. In fact, as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) has well pointed out, this is the first occasion in the history of this Parliament when a proposal of this character was postponed until the third session.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The fourth.
Sir ROBERT iBORDEN: Yes, the fourth; one of the sessions, however, was very short. The hon. member for .Laprairie and Napier-ville (Mr. Lanctot) held hie peace in the first session after the general election of 1904. At that session, the very first session after a general election, the indemnity of members of this House was increased from $1,500 to $2,600.


Roch Lanctôt: Will the right hon.
gentleman permit me a question?


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly.


Roch Lanctôt: In 1905, it is true, the
indemnity was increased but there was no opposition to it at all, and I did not offer any opposition myself. The hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) and I did not put up any opposition at the time, hut as I said a while ago, I was not the man then that I am to-day.


Leonard Thomas Bland: If the Prime .Minister
will pardon me for a .moment I should like to say just one word. It is a fact that in 1905 no vote was recorded on the question of raising the indemnity, but during the following session, in 1906, the hon. member for South York proposed that the indemnity be reduced to the former level, and on a vote being taken, the hon. member for Laprairie voted to maintain the indemnity at $2,500.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: 
Robert Laird Borden: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) for the information which he has just given the House, because I really did not know it was as bad as that. Now, I quite admit, iMr. Speaker, and I repeat what I said the other evening, that there is some condition of unrest in this country. But, on the whole, I believe that the conditions in Canada are more stable and satisfactory than in any other country. You never will reach a period in the history of this country when a proposal of this kind will not excite some interest and invoke some criticism. Therefore, if we are to wait, before taking any action in this matter, (until there is absolutely no breath of criticism raised, and no so-called unrest created, the indemnity as it was fixed in 1905 will remain until Parliament is no more. Under the circumstances, I hope the House will give the Bill its second reading and consider its provisions in Committee.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-salaries of ministers increased.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that the
effect of this section is to make the position of Prime Minister that of a departmental head. Hitherto the Prime Minister held one of the departments, and it seems that we are creating an additional department.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: What is proposed here has been carried out in Ontario and also in Quebec, as I am informed. The Prime Minister can hold office without portfolio. 'Thus the proposal is not absolutely original with us. I should think it ought to work out very well. The Prime Minister has-, in the past, been President of the Privy Council particularly during later years. In the early years of Sir John Macdonald's administration he was, first, Minister of Justice and afterwards Minister of Railways and1 Canals. Sir John 'Thompson held the *position of Prime Minister and Minister of Justice. I must confess that conditions as I have known them during the past nine years strongly indicate that the Prime Minister should ibe free, if he so desires, from the duties and responsibilities of any department of the Government.
On section 2-First Minister inserted in sections excepting Ministers from disqualification for sitting in House of Commons and allowing exchange of portfolio in certain cases:


Robert Laird Borden: That merely carries out the previous section by including the Prime Minister as such in the list of those members of the House of Commons who still may be members, notwithstanding



J920

[Stage Direction]
that they hold offices of emolument under the Crown.
Mr. FIELDlING:	It does not mean that
a member of the House taken directly into the office of Prime Minister would be relieved from any subsequent election?
Robert Laird Borden: No.


William Stevens Fielding: He would be in the same position as any other departmental head?


Robert Laird Borden: Quite so. It does mean that he is included in the list I have alluded to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will you kindly give a more precise explanation of this section, as it refers to another Act?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend knows that except for the provisions of the statute no member of the House of Commons can hold an office of emolument under the Crown. There is a list of those who may hold such office, such as ministers of the Crown, and the Prime Minister, as such, with respect to the enjoyment of his salary, is included in that list.
On section 4-provisions applicable to the present session:


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to explain that the purpose of this clause is the following: Some restrictive provisions are included in later sections of the Bill. The purpose of this section iis to declare that- the provisions of .the Act as now in force shall apply to the present, session subject however to the increase of indemnity. To make myself clear let me put it i,n this way: We have repealed the indemnity of $2,500 and we have established; an indemnity of $4,000. We have provided however that no person shall be entitled to the indemnity of $4,000 unless he shall have been in attendance at the House of Commons during three-fourths of the days on which the House has been actually sitting. Some hon. members of this House who have not attended three-fourths of these days would have been entitled to $2,500, inasmuch as they have attended for more than the thirty-one days required by the existing statute. It was thought unfair to deprive hon. members of the advantage which they would have had under the existing statute. Therefore it is provided by this section that the $4,000 indemnity, in so far as their attendance is concerned, shall be governed by the provisions of the existing law. I am not quite su re whether 'I have made it perfectly clear to my hon. friend.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is quite clear that it is intended, as respects the indemnity of members of the House of Commons and the salaries of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, to cover the present year, but I am not quite clear as to when it takes effect as regards the salaries of the ministers.


Robert Laird Borden: It will take effect on the day upon which it is passed. It is not retroactive in so far as ministers are concerned.


William Stevens Fielding: But it will apply to this session?


Robert Laird Borden: It will apply to
this session so far as the amount of indemnity is concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This brings to my mind a thought I intended to express when I spoke on the second reading. Without commenting one way or the other, I think it is right that the public should appreciate 'thait this section .giving an 'increase in the sessional .allowance to this Parliament ought to be considered in relation to what happened last year when there were two sessions. I -may be mistaken but I firmly believe that there would not have been any second session if the indemnity had been what is now proposed, and the country at large would have been saved the enormous expense of the second session and the enactment of a good deal of legislation that is of a somewhat doubtful character, if the Government had not felt itself under the obligation of in some way meeting the demand of members to help to provide for the increased cost of living.	,


Robert Laird Borden: I must take the strongest possible exception to what the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said. As far as I am concerned-and I think I know as much about it as any hon. member-there is not the slightest foundation for what my hon. friend has stated. We held that session for the definite purpose which we announced and also for the purpose of passing further ' legislation which we were unable to pass at the spring session. The Civil Service Amendment Act was passed, the Peace Treaty was discussed, treaties were ratified, legislation of an important character was passed and the session was absolutely necessary.


Roch Lanctôt: I move,
That clause 4 be struck out and that the following clause be substituted therefor: "This Act, except section 6 thereof, shall not come

into operation until after the day of the return of the writs issued for the next general election of members of the House of Commons of Canada."
Amendment negatived; yeas 41, nays 107.
On section 5-sessional indemnity; deductions for non-attendance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why is it that the indemnity is paid to a member in case of illness, only within a limit of ten miles from Ottawa? A member {taken ill at Ottawa may require special treatment elsewhere, at Montreal or Toronto?


Robert Laird Borden: The same question arose when I first entered the House. The reason, I imagine, is this:	if there
were not some limit it would be possible that only h casual illness might sometimes detain an hon. member at his home. It was therefore thought best to provide that the indemnity should be paid only in the event of the illness occurring at Ottawa or within ten miles of the capital. Where a member has been detained at home by serious illness, or sent to a hospital, it ha.s always been the practice to provide by special vote against the deduction which otherwise would be made. That is done at every session of Parliament and the provision is administered under the direction of the Treasury Board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Provision has been
made under this section for the regular attendance of members. While I do not wish to be too arbitrary in such a manner it does seem to me that in the Upper House they have a means of securing a more, regular attendance of hon. gentlemen by a system of registration under which the presence of members is recorded at each sitting. I was perfectly sincere this afternoon in giving as one of the chief reasons why I supported this measure the hope of securing a better attendance at the sittings of the House. In the Senate there is an officer who registers the daily attendance of members, and it seems to me that it would be only fair and proper that having given the increased indemnity a tetter attendance of members should be secured in this House by way of registration.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know
what this House may decide in that regard, but T recollect very well that when I was leader of the Opposition, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister there was a revision of the rules of the House

and provision was made in the new rules for exactly what my hon. friend has suggested. I am sorry to say that, although Sir Wilfrid Laurier and I united our forces in that regard, we were ignominiously defeated by the majority of the committee, and the rule proposing to accomplish what my hon. friend suggests was stricken out of the report submitted to the House. T am not quite sure that it would be of any great advantage in the House of Commons. At iall events, any such provision should be carried out by rule and not by legislation. As a matter of fact, the provision which has been made in the present legislation with respect to attendance is somewhat more drastic than that which has prevailed in the past.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend
explain it?


Robert Laird Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, under those circumstances any hon. member would be entitled under the proposed amendment to less than he would be entitled to under the present law. Do I make myself perfectly clear to my hon. friend?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Actual sittings?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. In addition, it i,s provided that the indemnity shall in no case be paid unless the House has been in session for at least 50 days. So while the indemnity is increased

to the amount mentioned, hon. members will bear in mind that the regulation as to attendance is very much stricter than formerly. No hon. gentleman will be entitled to receive his indemnity at the rate of $4,000 unless he has actually been in his place in attendance on the House for at least three-fourths of the days upon which the House has been sitting.


Leonard Thomas Bland: Would that apply to the present session?


Robert Laird Borden: No. I have already explained that inasmuch as that rule had not been established with respect to the present session it would be unfair to apply it. We Let the sessional indemnity of $4,000 apply, but in respect to the deduction, the number of days attendance, etc., we have left the law as it was before.


Leonard Thomas Bland: In other words, it means
that if there are 100 days of actual sittings of the House, a member can draw his indemnity only in case he has attended 75 of the sitting days?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Leonard Thomas Bland: Always subject to an
eventual deduction of $20 or $25 a day beyond the 15 days that he might be absent?


Robert Laird Borden: A deduction of
$25 a day.


Leonard Thomas Bland: But he must have been
present on 75 days of the 100?


Robert Laird Borden: Quite right. I
should also add that the deduction for each day's non-attendance beyond the 15 days has been increased then from $15 to $25. Formerly $15 was deducted for each day of non-attendance beyond 15 days; in future $25 will be deducted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Assistant Clerk given an authority to certify member's statements.
Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the reason for
this amendment?


Robert Laird Borden: It is merely for the convenience of members. Sometimes it is difficult to get the certificate by reason of the absence or illness of the Clerk; hence the amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under those circumstances we should give the very able assistant to the Clerk of the House a proper indemnity.


Robert Laird Borden: That comes up in the Civil Service re-classification.


Leonard Thomas Bland: This is not the place to mention it, Mr. Chairman,-but when may we expect this list to be laid upon the table of the House? Before the session is over?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think so. I believe it is in the hands of the Speaker at the present moment.
Bill reported without amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: Moved the third reading of the Bill.


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Speaker, I voted for the amendment that the Bill be not made effective until after general election; that amendment did not carry. Therefore, I move seconded by Mr. Lanctot:
That Bill 219 be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions to strike out all the sections thereof with the exception of Section 6.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have grave doubts
whether this amendment is in order. In the first place, the principle of the Bill has been adopted, and if the amendment of the hon. member for Prescott were entertained it would be in effect a negative to the principle which has already been approved by the House. There is also the further question,, whether it is destructive of the Bill. It is true that it leaves section 6, but that is a very small part of the original Bill. However, without wishing to pass judgment to the prejudice of the hon. member, I shall submit the amendment to the House.
Amendment (Mr. Proulx) negatived on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (Mini ister of Trade and Commerce) Bill No. 194 to amend the Canada Grain Act was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 4-persons who cannot be agents to apply for cars:
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I move that
clause 4 be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment, read (he third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce), Bill No. 220, to amend the Boards of Trade Act, was considered in committee, reported without amendment, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 120, to provide for the retirement of certain members of the public service, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I mention to the hon. gentleman who is leading the House (Sir 'George Foster) that the understanding with the Prime Minister was that opportunity would be given to discuss what I may speak of as the Murdock charges with regard to the Board of Commerce? I hope that it will not be left until after midnight. I understood that the matter was to be taken up immediately after the Grain Bill bad been dealt- with.


George Green Foster: The Prime Minister is getting his papers now.


Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was
last before the committee, clause 1 had been adopted and1 clause 2 was under consideration.


Mr. CALDER:: When this clause was
under discussion it was suggested that a provision be put in the Bill to the effect that in the case of any official retiring that official should get notice and that he should have the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission. I suggest that we add a new sub-section to section 2, as follows:
(3) When it is decided to retire any person under the provisions of this Act notice in writing thereof giving the reasons for such retirement shall be sent to such person, and he shall have the right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission, after giving such person an opportunity to be heard, shall make a full report upon the matter to the Governor in Council, and the decision of the Governor in Council thereon shall be final.


Jacques Bureau: The exception I took
when this Bill was last before the committee was not on the ground that men who were . being retired had not the right of appeal, but on the ground that under the Bill the man who had reached the age of fifty-nine might be retired' and be given a very poor Te-tiring allowance. If a man is over sixty he receives upon retirement something to keep him during the rest of his life, but there are good many men-


James Alexander Calder: I have further suggestion to make in regard to that; we will come to it in the next section.


Jacques Bureau: The amendment proposed by the minister to section 2 is, I understand, that the deputy head shall make the first report with regard to a man whom it is proposed to retire, and shall give him notice. Upon receiving notice, the employee has the right of appeal to the Civil'Service Commission. Well, that would be futile, because the Civil Ser-
10	p.m. vice Commission have already pronounced themselves on the subject, having acted in conjunction with the deputy minister. Do I understand that the employee then has the right of appeal to the Governor in Council


James Alexander Calder: No, he appeals to the
commission. The commission report upon the facts to the Governor in Council, and the decision of the Governor in Council is final.


William Stevens Fielding: The point of my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) seems to be well taken. The Civil Service Commission are the complainants in the first instance, -and if there is a difficulty, the matter is -referred back to them; they in the end -are to be the court of appeal. Is -that not the position?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Furthermore, the -report is to be made to the Governor in Council. It i-s practically the minister who makes the report.


James Alexander Calder: Not the minister.


Jacques Bureau: The deputy -minister; and we all know that generally the deputy makes a report, t'he minister signs it and whatever the minister say-s

especially in matters -relating to routine or -administration o-f hi-s department, goes, in council.


James Alexander Calder: What would the hon. gentleman suggest instead?


Jacques Bureau: I-f you are going to eliminate -from the service -men on account of age or on account of physical incapacity, -such men -should be provided for better than they are provided -for by this Bil-l.
M,r. OALDER: The question of compensation is another matter. '


Jacques Bureau: I do not see that this clause offers any remedy to the existing situation, because the same tribunal is handling the -matter in different ways. The commission -and the deputy head are the

people who make up the list of those who are to be retired. Then the civil servant will have an appeal to the same commission which has already pronounced and passed on his case in conjunction with the deputy minister. Then the deputy minister, who has already passed on the case in conjunction with the commission, makes a report to the minister who submits it to the Governor in Council. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other; it is the same thing.
Mr. OAL.DER: Does- the hon. gentleman suggest that the appeal -should be direct to the Governor in Council? '


Jacques Bureau: By the civil servant?


William Stevens Fielding: The Governor in Council is not a body to hear appeals. There might be an appeal1 to the minister, but you could not very well have an appeal Ito the Governor in Council.


James Alexander Calder: In the case of the re-olas-safi-catio-n of the Civil Service,, we had a very similar provision to this. The classification was made, salaries fixed and schedules arranged by the Civil .Service Commission. If any section of the -service or any persons in the service objected to that -classification, they appealed to the Civil Service Commission: but the Civil- Service Commission, instead of hearing those -appeals directly, appointed a board of hearing to hear them. We might make provision in thi-s Bill for a similar board- of hearing to be appointed by the Civil Service -Gam-mission. You might get over the difficulty in that way.


William Stevens Fielding: If there is to be a tribunal of appeal, it does not seem -reasonable that the -Civil Service Commission, which has origin-ally made the complaint, shall be the final board of appeal. I have not, however, any further -suggestion to offer.
Mr. -CALDER: If it be the wish of the committee, we -might appoint a special board for that purpose, but I think this matter can very wel-l be left i-n the hands of the deputy heads and the -commission with the right of appeal, -and then with a report to the Governor in Council as to all -the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. VIEN:: It seem-s to -me, as the minister explained this clause when thi-s Bill was previously under discussion, that the greatest safeguard -for civil -servants will be the deputy head of each department. The commission should not make their report after a simple consultation with the deputy
head; the report should, be made jointly with the deputy head, so that, if the report be not unanimous, the deputy head may make -a minority report. I should like the report to -contain the findings of the deputy head as a safeguard against -some shortcomings in the commission. I would suggest to amend su-bclaus-e (2) by striking out the words "and after -consultation" in line 2 of the -suboLamse, and substituting therefor the word "jointly."


James Alexander Calder: I expressed my view to the committee the other day when the Bill was under consideration. Personally, I am inclined- to the view that the position as it stands is the preferable one. I doubt very much the advisability of -making deputy head-s of departments responsible, even jointly with the commission, for retiring officials. As I stated the other day, there is -between deputy heads and their officials in many instances a close relation extending over long periods- of years, and for that reason- my view is that the provision as- it is in the Bill should stand. If we give the right of appeal, hon. members may rest assured that the deputy minister, if he thinks a person should not be retired, will make his- wishes clearly known and will -state his reasons. Therefore, with the right -of appeal, there will be protection where an apparent injustice migh-t be done.


Thomas Vien: With the Bill as it stands, the consultation with the deputy head is purely illusory


James Alexander Calder: No.


Thomas Vien: because the report does not even -mention what -the findings- of the deputy head are, whereas with a joint report, the report would mention that the findings are either unanimous or that the deputy head does not concur in them.
Amendment (Mr. Vien) withdrawn.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 3-notice of retirement:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is provided in subclause (2) that every officer who i-s retired under the provisions of this Act will be entitled to- an annual retiring allowance not exceeding thirty-sixtieths of his average annual salary. Under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, which was passed prior to 1908 and- under which several members of the Civil -Service have been appointed and have continued to serve, the limit of retiring allowance was thirty-five fiftieths of the annual salary. Does this

clause take away from any one appointed under the provisions of that Act the higher rate of retiring allowance to which he would be entitled, having contributed under that Act?


James Alexander Calder: In connection with clause 6 of the Bill, I purpose moving an amendment that will make it perfectly clear that civil servants who are under the existing superannuation system will not be affected by this Bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all right.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Will the minister work out the operations of the Bill in the case of a public servant who has been in the service of the Government for sixty-five years and who has been dismissed during the current year with one month's notice and one month's pay.	,


James Alexander Calder: Has the man already been retired?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: He is a man who is
eighty-two years of age and1 who has been in the Government service for sixty-five years.


James Alexander Calder: Has he been retired?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Yes, during the current year. Will the provisions of this Bill apply to a case of this kind?


James Alexander Calder: No, it is not retroactive.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Will no provision be
made for such a case, which is a case of serious hardship? This man has been in the public service for sixty-five years. He is now eighty-two years of age and he is left without any means of support. He was employed as -slide-master on the Ottawa river and in various other capacities in the service of the Public Works Department during all those years from 1855 up to the present time. He -is now retired on one' month's notice with one month's salary, after having served the country all these years. Why is it that there is no provision for a case of that kind? I believe it is a deserving case and it should receive the consideration of the Government. A man who has served the country for sixy-five years deserves better treatment at the hands of the Government than dismissal on a month's notice, and if this Bill does not cover a case of that kind it should be made to do so.


James Alexander Calder: Would the hon. gentleman provide not only for those who were retired within the last three months but for those

who were retired six months ago, nine months ago, twelve months ago, two, three, four or five years ago, and so on.? In other words, where is the line to be drawn? The Bill is not retroactive; it takes the service as it is and says that in future-during this year, for instance-if there are any servants retired these provisions shall apply, but it does not suggest that this provision should be made retroactive. If we make provision for the civil servant to whom the hon. gentleman refers, why should we not go back and make provision for every civil servant who has been retired and who is still living, being over sixty or seventy years- of age at t-he time of retirement? If it -i-s fair to make the Bill apply to a particular individual who happened to be retired two months ago, what about the man who was retired four months ago or five years agos There is no end to it, if you make it retroactive. You must draw the line somewhere, and it was decided that this Bill should not be made retroactive.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: What I wanted to know was W/hether this Bill would apply from the first of the current calendar year or from the first of the financial year of the Government, that is to say, from the first of January or from the first of April of this year, or from the date of the passing of this Bill. This is the point I want to have cleared up. If the Bill is to be effective from the date it becomes law, then I would insist that some special consideration be given to cases such as that which I have called attention to.


James Alexander Calder: How far back would you go?


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: This man was dismissed in April of this year, so that if the provisions of this Bill were made to apply from the first of the current fiscal year it would include such a case, if that case is covered by the Bill. And if it is not covered by the Bill I would press upon the minister the necessity for some special consideration of every case of this kind, because there cannot be many such. This man was dismissed, as I say, on one month's notice with one month's salary, and I should like the minister to take his case into serious [DOT]consideration. He gave very valuable service in the Department of Public Works and the position he held was very efficiently and capably filled. It proved a revenue-producing office, one of the few instances of that kind in the Government service.


William Stevens Fielding: May I bring to the
minister's notice a certain case and ask his

opinion a-s to how the Bill would apply? It is not necessary that I should mention the name of the official, although I can give it to the hon. gentleman. This man has been in the public service for over 30 years, and recently he has been afflicted with blindness and is of course disqualified from active Work. He writes me:
When the retirement scheme became law I foolishly asked to be placed under it, but before the Treasury Board had dealt with the matter I asked to be allowed to withdraw but was refused. I have made several efforts since without any success. If I interpret Bill 120 rightly, I will come under its provisions. I write you to draw your attention to the fact that it is not nearly so liberal a measure as the old superannuation Act. Under Bill 120 you cannot exceed 30-60ths of your salary, while under the old Act the maximum is 35-50ths. The benefit is materially reduced while the cost of living has more than trebled.
I take it for granted that he is not on the superannuation list. He changed from the superannuation list to the retirement. I remember there was a fixed time during which there was allowed the privilege of changing, and I presume he applied within the time and the thing was definitely settled. I do not personally remember the case. This man is an old official, having been thirty years in the Service, and he now feels that the present provision is not veTy liberal. Has my hon. friend any particular reason for taking the basis of 30-60ths instead of 35-50ths?


James Alexander Calder: Under the old superannuation law, if I remember rightly, the civil servant paid into the fund three or five per cent-I think it was raised to five per cent. A civil servant who has paid into that fund for a period of thirty or thirty-five years is certainly entitled to a higher annual allowance than the civil servant who has never paid anything into the fund, and for that reason the Bill suggests that instead of paying l-50th, as is done under the Superannuation Act, we should make it l-60fch, for each year of service, and for the same reason the limitation us placed at 30-60ths instead of 35-50ths. The man who, under the old superannuation law, for a long period of years paid into that fund Is entitled to greater consideration than the person who has never paid anything at all.


William Stevens Fielding: In this case I take it that he bad originally contributed to the Superannuation Fund, but when the Retirement Act was passed, no doubt under the impression that it was an advantage to him to do so, he gave up the old superannuation system and came under the retirement fund.
For a certain class of officials there might be an advantage in the change, but in his case it seems that it was not advantageous. At all events, he regrets it. I have no doubt he contributed to the superannuation fund for some years before he changed to the other.


James Alexander Calder: This Bill does not affect the rights of civil servants in regard to any amount that stands to their credit in the fund.


William Stevens Fielding: They still have that as a saving?


James Alexander Calder: Yes, and they will
be entitled to it regardless of the provisions of this Bill. If a civil servant paid for 20 or 25 years into the fund, his payments, plus interest which has accumulated during that time, stands to his credit, and when he retires he is entitled to the full amount, whatever it may be, in addition to what he may be entitled to under this Act. Now, in clause 3 objection was taken the other day- and I am inclined to think rightly so-that there is quite a discrepancy between a man who is retired under the age of sixty years and the man who is retired when he has reached the age of sixty. Under the Bill as it is drafted a civil servant is not entitled to an annuity until he has reached the age of sixty years and has served at least five years. As a result of the discussion which we had the other day I wish to propose to the committee for consideration the suggestion that in place of olause 2 as it stands the first part of the clause should read as fallows:
(2) Every officer retired under the provisions of this Act who is not less than forty-five nor more than fifty-nine years of a-e v. ho has served continuously in the public service for not less than twenty years, and every officer retired under the provisions of this Act who is sixty years of age or over who has served continuously in the public service for not less than ten years-
Then the remainder is as it appears in the Bill. In both of these cases an officer retired would have one-sixtieth of his average salary for the last three years of his service for each year of service that he has given. I a mian between the age of forty-five and fifty-nine is retired compulsorily and has served at least twenty years he will be entitled to a consideration of this kind.


Samuel William Jacobs: Assuming that his salary was $1,000, what amount would he receive?


James Alexander Calder: Put it at $1,200 a year. Taking that as his average salary for the


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Take the case of a man who has served sixty-five years. What amount would he be entitled to under this provision of the Act if it applied to his case? His average salary for the last three years would be $900.	.


James Alexander Calder: Thirty-sixtieths of $900
would be $450.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Plus $150?


James Alexander Calder: No, he would be entitled to thirty-sixtieths or one-half of $900, his average, salary for the last three years would be $900. Then he would be entitled to one half of $900 or $450.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is practically nothing. If a man were to buy a suit of clothes and a pair of boots it would practically eat up his entire allowance.
.Mr. CALDER: What is the hon. gentleman suggesting?


Leonard Thomas Bland: I would propose to amend the section by substituting "twenty sixtieths" for "ten sixtieths" in the 19th line of subsection 2 and by substituting "forty sixtieths" for "thirty sixtieths" in the 23rd line. That would increase somewhat the allowance to a man who would be retired after he had reached the age of sixty-five, had been in the service for forty years and might be considered inefficient for some reason physical or otherwise, and who, though having a family, would be receiving under the section as drawn only half of his salary. Under this amendment he would receive two-thirds. It would cost a little more money but it would do away with a great many hardships which may loom up in the future.


James Alexander Calder: We can scarcely do that unless we go back and revise the Superannuation law as it now stands on the statute books and under which some hundreds of officials will be entitled to certain allowances. The hon. gentleman proposes that the maximum allowance to be provided by this Bill may be two thirds of his salary. Under the existing law where officials have themselves paid into the fund for years thej are only entitled to thirty-five fiftieths.


Mr BELAND :: It applies to all.


James Alexander Calder: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that officials that have paid nothing should be placed upon a higher plane than officials who are under the existing law?


Leonard Thomas Bland: Then keep them in the Service.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The trouble is that you are going to have a large number of complaints from men who have been getting about $1,200 a year. I am inclined to agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland). Though it is rather late to change the Government's mind on the point I would point out that this is a sort of clean-up of the old system of appointing men to the Civil Service not because of their ability and not because of their youth but because of their importunity and the importunity of their friends. When we are cleaning up the situation we might as well be generous about it and not turn old employees out on the world without making some provision enabling them to support themselves and families in their declining years. It would almost break the heart of a man with a wife and family if he is not capable of continuing in the Service to give him the small sum provided for in section
3.	It is rather late but I would hope yet that my hon. friend would see his way to increasing these amounts. Men who have got in there, not from their own fault but simply because of their frailties and incapacity will be thrown out upon the world, because that is what it amounts to.
Amendment (Mr. Calder) agreed to.


James Alexander Calder: I have another amendment to section 3, and I would suggest that it be added as subsection 5:
In computing- the average annual salary of any officer for the purposes of this section such salary shall include the estimated value of any allowance made to suich officer for housing, light, fuel or rations as determined by the Governor in Council upon the joint recommendation of the Civil Service Commission and the deputy head of the department concerned.
There are certain officials in the service, like a lighthouse keeper or an Indian agent out on a reserve, who, in lieu of salary are given certain allowances for light, housing, fuel or something of that character, and if a person of that class is retired I think some consideration should be given to an allowance of that kind to which he may be entitled.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: Subsection 4 dealing with the computation of fraction of periods may be all right but I am inclined to think it is not fulfilling the desired purpose. It reads:
In computing the number of years of service for the purposes of this section, if the actual

period of service includes a fraction of a year, the fraction, if equal to or greater than one-half, shall be counted as a full year of service.
If it is less the implication is it shall not be counted at all, and that is the intention. Is it clear as so expressed, or will the officer still get the benefit of the fraction?


James Alexander Calder: That is not the intention.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think that was the intention. The same question came up many years ago under the Superannuation Act and it was decided-although the law did not say so and that was not the intention-that every fraction of a year was as good as a year.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4-Expenditure to he voted.


James Alexander Calder: I find that we have overlooked placing a sum in the Supplementary Estimates to meet any expenditure under this Act. I, therefore, suggest this addition:
Any moneys payable under the provisions of this Act to any officer retired under its provisions shall be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament for the salary of such officer.
That is, all of these officers aTe now on salary. Their salaries are provided for in the Estimates and in each case the amount to which any officer shall be entitled on retirement would be less than his salary. So I am suggesting that any amount to which any officer shall be entitled shall be paid out of the moneys appropriated by Parliament for his salary.


William Stevens Fielding: If in any case you are appointing his successor there would be no money available.


James Alexander Calder: No.


William Stevens Fielding: It can only apply where no successor was appointed.


James Alexander Calder: I think that is the intention, because this Bill provides for the retirement of persons whose places are not to be filled, that is its main purpose. Ii this provision carries then there will be no money left to pay a successor. Therefore I think this is the wiser provision.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Equalization of payments under different statutes:
James Alexander Calder: To meet the point raised by the leader of the Opposition it is -suggested that in the second line after the word "entitled" the words "or eligible"
should be inserted, and after the word "receive" in the same line the words "and is granted"; and that there be added to the end of the section these words:
Provided that the provisions of this Act shall not affect the power to grant to any person any annual allowance which he may be eligible to receive upon superannuation under part 1 of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act.


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest amending the clause to make this clear:
Nor shall it affect the right of any officer to any interest he may have in the Retirement Fund.
I know that is the minister's intention but he had better express it.


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section V-Annual Teport of Parliament :
Leonard Thomas Bland: I would suggest to the minister that an addition be made to this clause specifying the number of days within which the report shall be made and laid on the Table. I would therefore advise the addition after the word "commission" of these words "laid within thirty days from the opening day"-then giving the name, age and salary.


William Stevens Fielding: Laid where?


Leonard Thomas Bland: On the Table of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: The report is made to Parliament which includes both Houses.


James Alexander Calder: I think the usual phraseology is something like this: "An annual report shall be made to Parliament within thirty days from the commencement of each session by the Civil Service Commission giving"-and so on.


Leonard Thomas Bland: I move to amend clause 7 by inserting after the word "Parliament" in the 33rd line the words "within thirty days from the commencement of each session."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
James Alexander Calder: I move to add, as clause 8, the following:
No person shall be retired under the provisions of this Act after the first day of July one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
* 4466
[Stage Direction]
On the title:
Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Before you retport the Bill, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the minister add a clause making provision for the coming into force of this Act at an earlier date than the date on which it is assented to-say the first of January, 1920, or the 'beginning of the present fiscal year, 1st of April. In making that proposal I may as well admit it is for the purpose of securing the inclusion of the special case I called attention to.


James Alexander Calder: If the door is open I aim sure there will not he a memiber of the House who will not have some particular case that has occurred during the last five years that should toe dealt with where some person has been retired, If it is done in one case how iare you going to avoid doing it in other cases? If the door is opened at all, if it is opened as respects two, three or five years, there will be no limit at all.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: According to my experience we very often deal with specific or .special cases, and I think I am safe in saying that no other hon. memiber can produce a -case which will at all he similar to the one I have -called attention to, where a man eighty-two years of age has been in the Government for a period of sixty-five years-


Georges Henri Boivin: Unless the hon.
member has an amendment to submit in the form of a clause which he desires- to have added to the Bill this discussion is irrelevant. The hon. memiber is- certainly not in order in discussing any specific case at this -stage of the proceedings. The question from the Chair is: Shall the title carry. The hon. gentleman would -be in order in proposing to add a clause to the Bill, hut not otherwise.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I was merely asking
the minister in charge of this Bill if he would not add a clause to it making provision along the lines I have suggested. If he declines to do so, I have nothing further to say in the matter.
Bill reported as amended, read the third time, and passed.



STATE INSURANCE FOR RETURNED SOLDIERS.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the amendments made by the Senate to Bill 195 to provide for the Insur-

-an-oe of Returned Sol-dder-s- by -the Dominion of -Canada.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance):: The amendments which I have to draw to the attention of the House are very simple. An amendment was made in subsection (b) of section 2 by the addition of the word "legally" before the word "adopted". So that the section now reads "a child legally adopted". 'Then the provision as to service has been somewhat extended, and I think it more accurately carries out the intention of the committee. That particular amendment is made to subsection (g) of the same section. Two clerical changes are made in the same section by re-numbering the subsections. In section 5 there is a typographical error which has been corrected, the word "widow" being changed to "widower". Section 6 which deals with the beneficiaries of the fund, has been amplified by adding the following words,- "the insured may apportion the insurance money among them ", that is, -the beneficiaries-"as he deems fit; but if at his death he is still unmarried or is a widower without children, the insurance money shall, subject to sections 4 and 11 of this Act, fall into and become part of the estate of the insured." A clerical change is also made in section 9, and a further change is made by carrying the word "survivor" into the plural; there is no -change in -suhsltanee whatever. In the same way the word "or" in the ninth section on page 4 is changed to "and"; the change is an improvement. In section 10 the word "basis" is dealt with in the plural. Here again there is no change whatever in substance. Those are the amendments, Mr. -Speaker, and I move that they he concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion that the House again go into Committee of Supply:
Mr. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition!:	Mr. Speaker, not for many
years has there been levelled against any Government so strong an indictment as that which is contained in the letter of resignation of Mr. James Murdock from the Board of Commerce addressed on June 24th to my right hon. friend the Prime

Minister. Let me recount to the House the charges made in that communication, and in so doing I would remind the House that these charges have not been made by any hon. member of the Opposition for any political purpose, but have been made against the Government by one of its own appointees who has been serving upon a board which the Government itself created, and who has had an opportunity to form an opinion in regard to the merits of the legislation and the method of its working the like of which could be open to no one except a member of the board
In his letter Mr. Murdock charges.
1.	That the Board has been handicapped for months without a Chairman and without a proper staff.
2.	That the majority of the Government are not now and never have been in sympathy with the provisions and intent of the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act.
3.	That these Acts were passed merely as the result of temporary alarm incident to the Winnipeg strike and' other popular demonstrations when the people demanded some means of controlling profiteers.
4.	That as soon as the Acts in question became law, members of the Cabinet at once began to minimize the provisions of these Acts so far as they related to certain businesses.
5.	That the Chairman was regarded by certain interests as being "safe and sane"; that is, as being a person upon whom they could depend to protect their unrestricted leeway in taking profits, and as being in sympathy with high prices and against low prices.
6.	That the Chairman spent more time in looking after his private affairs in Winnipeg than in attending to Board of Commerce matters.
7.	That the Chairman received for revision the brief which counsel1 for the Crescent Creamery Company was using before the Supreme Court in opposition to the Board of Commerce.
8.	That information in regard to the Crescent Creamery Company, and other information sent to Sir George Foster minister of Trade and Commerce while Acting Prime Minister on March 3rd last, was withheld from Parliament and the people.
9.	That nothing was done by the Board to affect certain business and financial interests which Judge Robson thought ought to be protected from interference.
10.	That Judge Robson's views were well known to several ministers, especially to the Minister of Colonization and Immigration, Mr. Calder.
11.	That several ministers secretly sought to thwart the Board's activities.
12.	That the Civil Service Commission, acting under suggestion, had handicapped and delayed the Board of Commerce.
13.	That certain ministers had tried to protect textile manufacturers from investigation.
14.	That a statement of facts as to textiles would have startled and incensed the Canadian public.
15.	That reasonable Government co-operation would have enabled the Board to control profiteering.
16.	That adequate technical assistance was denied to the Board.
Now, these are extremely serious charges, and are calculated to increase the unrest now prevailing in the country, due to the high cost of living and to a general belief that that high cost of living is to a large extent attributable to profiteering. It was this prevailing public opinion which led the Government in 1919 to enact the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act.
Let me, Mr. Speaker, briefly review some of the circumstances connected with the appointment of this Board. The Board of / Commerce derived its powers from two acts passed in the first session of 1919: the Combines and Fair Prices Act, and the Board of Commerce Act. The Combines and Fair Prices Act declared that the Board is empowered and directed to restrain and prohibit the formation and operation of combines; the making of unfair profits upon the necessaries of life; .and all such practices as are calculated to unfairly enhance the cost or price of such necessaries of life.
Now, Sir, it is to be noticed in connection with this Act that one of its clauses repealed an Act which has been on the Statutes of Canada since May 4th, 1910, known as the Combines Investigation Act. When I had the honour of being in the ministry of the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I had the privilege of introducing this Act for the investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers. Under the provisions of the Act any six persons who believed that a monopoly was operating in restraint of trade or that prices were being unduly enhanced, or who had reason to believe that the public interests were being
[Stage Direction]


adversely affected through profiteering had the right to appear before any judge of a High Court and upon making out a prima facie case were entitled to demand a Board of Investigation. Upon that board they were entitled to name a member; the interest affected was entitled to name a member, and the two thus chosen were to select a third, or failing a choice by the two, the third was to be appointed by the Government. The board thus constituted had all the powers of investigating that a court of record would have. That legislation, so long as it was on the statute book, gave to consumers an opportunity at least, where they believed, that there was profiteering, to have an investigation made at their own instance, but the present Government in introducing its legislation repealed this Act and substituted as I have said, the measure known as the Combines and Fair Prices Act. In as much as the law of 1910, to which I have referred, was repealed, there was the greater reason why every care should be taken in the interests of consumers to see that the Combines and Fair Prices Act, enacted by the present Administration, should be made as effective and workable as possible. Instead of that, from the time that the board was instituted up to the present, its powers have been thwarted, according to the statements which have been made by Mr. Murdock. One member of the board after the other has retired until to-day the country is faced with the ignominious spectacle of having legislation on the statute book constituting a Board of Commerce which finds no expression in actual practice. ' Every one of the members of the Board of Commerce has resigned, for causes which reflect anything but credit upon the Administration. So with the practical features of that Act destroyed, as they have been; wdth the Combines Investigation Act of 1910 taken off the statute book, the consumers of this country, in whose interests and on whose behalf this legislation was enacted, are left without any protection whatever at a time when of all times there is the greatest need for somebody that will be effective in watching the interests of consumers and protecting them against the injustice of profiteers.
The disintegration of the Board of Commerce began with the resignation of Judge H. A. Robson on February 33, 1920. In the correspondence which has been brought down Judge Robson's letter of resignation declares that for various reasons he was out of sympathy with the Act, believing that 
the- economic policy of the country should be toward high prices and against low prices. He says, however, that there is a legitimate and useful field for the Board of Commerce, "but that is a matter which required discussion and some recasting of the Act." On February 26, my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) then Acting Prime Minister, acknowledged Judge Robson's suggestion "as to what might be done in the way of amendments to make the machinery more workable and to better effect the
11	p.m. purposes had in view when the Board of Commerce Act was passed in Parliament." He thanked Judge Robson for the suggestions that he had made and said that they would be carefully considered by the Government. But there the matter appears to have been allowed to end. We have now reached the last days of this session, and though the Government have brought down a mass of legislation amending previous legislation which they enacted, they have brought down no amendment to this particular Act, an Act which was passed in the interests of the consumers of this country. It is the only outstanding piece of legislation enacted by the Government within the last year or two in respect of which the Government have had no amendment to suggest. By the chairman of the board itself it was pointed out to the Government that if the Act was to be of any service it should be

amended during this session of Parliament.
It is to be observed that about the time of Judge Robson's resignation a difficulty had arisen in regard to the jurisdiction of the board. Price Brothers, newsprint manufacturers, appealed from the ruling of the board to the Supreme Court of Canada, and on April 6 the Supreme Court rendered a decision that the Governor General had no authority to confer certain powers and jurisdiction upon the board. Judge Robson's suggestion that the Act was unworkable and needed amendment, coming about the same time as the attack on the jurisdiction of the board afforded the strongest reasons for the appointment of some able successor who would be sympathetic with the law, and who could at least carry on the administration of the board in so far as it might have any power to carry out the duties for which it was appointed. The Government made no effort to appoint such a successor; they simply stood by and allowed the board gradually to peter out.
At the time of Judge Robson's resignation, a letter was sent by Mr. Murdock to the

Government giving his knowledge of the circumstances leading up to the severance of the judge's connection with the Board of Commerce. This letter was withheld from Parliament and the public, and apparently would never have seen the light if Mr. Murdock had not himself published it within the last few days. Hon. members on this side of the House earlier in the session asked that all the correspondence be brought down. They were told that the correspondence was of such a nature that it could not be brought down. Undoubtedly Mr. Murdock, knowing the situation, and feeling exasperated upon seeing the public treated with that kind of indifference by the Administration, made public sufficient of the correspondence to make it necessary for the Administration to disclose all the Communications that had passed. Now that they have 'been laid on the table of the House I think every hon. member will feel that in the public interest this correspondence should have been submitted to Parliament the moment the request was made that that be done.
Later on, on June 16, came the resignation of Mr. O'Connor, due to the meagre help afforded by the Civil Service Commission. This point is also emphasized by Mr. Murdock, and practically admitted by Judge Kobson. Finally, on June 24, comes the resignation of James Murdock, the sole remainin'* commissioner of the board. With Mr. Murdock's resignation the last vestige of protection to the consumer, so far as it can be given by legislation, disappears. It is no doubt inconvenient that the very grave charges which he makes should be published just at the time when Parliament is about to prorogue. That inconvenience, as I have pointed out, is due to the failure of the Government to act vigorously and take Parliament into its confidence four months ago. However inconvenient this disclosure may be at this time, the Government cannot escape the responsibilty which is upon it to clear itself in the matter or rest under the charges which Mr. Murdock has made against it. As I have said, these charges are not charges made by hon. members of this side of the House for any political effect; they are charges made by one of the Government's own appointees. Some support of these serious charges is given by the. policy of delay and concealment which the Government pursued by its failure to appoint successors to Judge Robson and Mr. O'Connor and by its allowing the board to peter out and disappear.
28ii
As soon as Judge Robson's resignation was received several duties were cast upon the Government. It was their duty, first, to reveal to the public all the facts in their
possession, and especially Mr. Murdock's letter relating the circumstances under which the resignation took place. If the Government had taken the country into its confidence at the time of Judge Robson's resignation the matter might then have been dealt with by Parliament and it would not have been necessary to bring it up at the last moments of the session. The Government should have amended the law, if amendments were considered necessary, and should have appointed a successor to Judge Robson.
The Government did none of these things; its policy has been one of drift. It has acted as if it did not care whether the legislation establishing the Board of Commerce, its own statutory child, lived or died. It has not declared publicly its agreement with the views of Judge Robson, yet it has acted as if it were secretly in agreement with those views. It would not kill its child, but it was apparentlyt quite willing to allow it to perish from lack of nourishment. It saw commissioner after commissioner resigning, and made no effort to appoint successors or to bring the board up to its proper strength and make it an efficient instrument for checking profiteering. Such a policy, or lack of policy, is the very one that is calculated to increase the unrest now prevailing in the country due to the high cost of living. It leaves on the public mind the impression that something ought to be done; that the Government is unwilling to do it, and yet is^ afraid to avow its real desires and intentions; and that the Government is secretly on the side of the profiteers. The only way to allay public unrest is to allow and ensure the fullest inquiry into the charges which Mr. Murdock has made. In this connection let me say that it was my mlention, had there been time to do so, to move in this House a resolution to this effect. I have it here written out as I had intended to move it:
Whereas all the members of the Board of Commerce appointed to check profiteering and investigate the causes of the high cost of living have tendered their resignations;
And whereas James Murdock, the last remaining member of the Board who resigned recently, has made grave charges against one of his colleagues and also against members of the Government;
Therefore,^ be it resolved that a Special Committee of this House be appointed with authority to examine witnesses and send for papers and
[Stage Direction]
documents and investigate said charges together with all other matters relating to the administration of the said Board and report to Parliament.
It had been my intention to move this resolution, but last night we were informed by the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne), in what, I must confess, I regarded as an arrogant and most inconsiderate manner, that the Government had made up their mind to prorogue Parliament to-day, and that so far as lay in his power, he. intended to see -that Parliament would he prorogued to-day. If the Government have any intention of this kind, they must use their own methods for carrying it out. But I wish to say to my right hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) that it is the duty of this Government, before Parliament prorogues, to have a committee of this House investigate -these charges which have been made by Mr. Murdock, and the Government for the sake of their own reputation and honour ought to be prepared to keep this- Parliament long enough iti session to have a committee investigate these charges. If the Government are unwilling to take the responsibility of appointing a committee of the House for this purpose, and prorogue Parliament without iso doing, -then they must take the responsibility for being unwilling to have those charges investigated and allowing them -to remain as they are, the strongest indictment which could possibly be made against an administration. I submit t,o my right hon. friend that that is the proper course to- -take. There -should be no appointment of any white-washing commission to go over the affairs of some other -commission, but a committee of this House should be appointed to fully investigate these -charges, which I have already read, and which are as grave as charges can possibly be. To bring in a motion of the kind myself would be to -be -met 'by hon. gentlemen opposite with the reply that having heard the statement made by the Minister of Naval Affairs- last night, I already knew that the Government had made u-p its mind to prorogue. If that be the Government's intention, I repeat again that that intention can be carried out only with a determination to stifle altogether investigation into these charges and to allow them to remain as they are without being answered or dealt with in a way that will satisfy the public mind and the public sense of what is -right and necessary. If such an inquiry is refused by the Government, the people will be justified in the 
belief that the charges made by Commissioner Murdock are true; that the Government are out of sympathy with their own legislation; that these Acts were passed merely -to quiet the alarm caused by the Winnipeg strike and other popular demonstrations, and to make a pretence of controlling profiteers; that the Government have been secretly thwarting the operations of the 'board and minimizing the effectiveness of their own legislation; that the chairman was appointed and kept in office to protect the big interests in taking excessive profits; and that the -Government protected the textile manufacturers in an investigation, the result of which would have -startled and incensed the Canadian public.
All these impressions- upon the public mind will be strengthened and confirmed if the Government refuse the inquiry which, I believe, should be granted as speedily as possible.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. -Speaker, I think hon.
gentlemen will agree that an announcement such as that which has just fallen from the lips of my hon. -friend is about the -most extraordinary that Parliament has ever listened to. My hon. friend thinks this is a matter of the gravest import, affecting the honour of Parliament and of the Government; more than that, affecting the interests of all the people of this country, touching the question of profiteering. And he does not purpose taking any steps in the matter because the Minister of Naval Affairs -(Mr. Ballantyne) told him last evening that the House was going to prorogue to-day. I might sit down after having -said that much, but I -shall proceed to deal with s-ome of -the assertions which the hon. gentleman has made.
In the first place, he apparently has committed himself to the statement, which is -made or suggested by Mr. Murdock, that the measures which were passed in the first session of 1319 were not -inspired by any sincere desire to remedy existing evils, but were passed for some ulterior purpose described in more or less vague terms. It is perfectly apparent that my hon. friend has not given very careful study to the -matter in this and other respects, as I shall -show before I -conclude. Otherwise, he would have reminded the House that the measures in -question are founded upon the results of .st-udy and deliberation by -a strong and representative committee which sat for five weeks in the first -session of 1919 and

which reported to this House that such measures ought to be enacted. If there be any ulterior motive (to be found, it must be sought in the deliberations and report of that committee, and not elsewhere. I did not hear any reference to this in the speech of my hon. friend, although if he has given the matter any consideration at ,aill, he must have know'n the facts. The committee in question was composed of hon. members from both sides of this House, and if my hon. friend suggests any ulterior motive, he is attributing that ulterior motive to many hon. gentlemen on his own side of the House.
. As regards the appointment of a chairman, I do not know whether my hon. friend intends to associate himself with the suggestion contained in Mr. Murdock's letter that Judge Robson was selected because it was known that he had a particular outlook with regard to profiteering, high prices and everything of the kind. Does my hon. friend desire to associate himself with that statement? He has not made it very clear to us. After these measures had been passed, the question of the personnel of the Board was a matter of most .anxious and prolonged consideration on the part of the Goverment and particularly on my part, and I take the fullest responsibility for the selection of Judge Robson as chairman. According to the information which was available to me at that time, there was no man in this country who, in point of character, ability and experience in such matters, stood higher than did Judge Robson. The Government believed at that time that at least one member of the Board should be appointed from the provinces of the West. Judge Robison was approached to ascertain whether or not- he would accept that position, and at first he absolutely declined it on .account of other engagements. Whom did the Government approach next? The next gentleman who was approached by the Government and urged to accept the chairmanship was Chief Justice Mather of the Bench of Manitoba. Is there any one who will believe that we approached Chief Justice Mather with the idea of selecting a man who would assist the profiteers? Judge Mather found himself unable to accept the position. In the meantime, Judge Robson was inclined to reconsider the matter. We approached him again, and he accepted the chairmanship. That is the whole truth from beginning to end with regard to the selection of the chairman, and I venture to think that no more unworthy or more unfounded suggestion was ever made in this Parliament
than that of my hon. friend, if he intended to make it, (that the selection of the chairman of the commission wa.s made from any other motive than to serve the public interest. As to the conduct of Judge Robson, if the Government of this country had maintained Judge Robson as chairman of the commission after he had tendered his resignation in view of what had taken place, my hon. friend might have had some shadow of ground upon which to rest his aspersion against the Government. But, as a matter of fact, as soon as the incident took place Judge Robson tendered his resignation and it w.as accepted. I for one am unable to understand the logical connection between the resignation of Mr. Murdock in the latter part of June and the incident which took place some three or four months previously. If Mr. Murdock was, to have taken any action by way of resignation on account of that incident, the time for him to have acted was then and not four months afterwards. At all events, the Government, having appointed Judge Robson in good faith, believing, as we sincerely believed, that he possessed the character, the ability and the experience that would justify his appointment, have no reason whatever to apologize for our action, nor to incur the unworthy suggestion made by my hon. friend with respect either to Judge Robson's appointment or to his resignation. We were not responsible for the course which he took. I am not pronouncing any judgment upon it; we exercised, and could exercise, no control or direction over the members of that commission; they were given a definite and independent status so ,as to render them absolutely independent of the Government and to enable them to do justice to the people of the. country under the provisions of the Act which Parliament had approved.
As to the complaint with regard to the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Murdock has made it a matter of serious complaint that the Government did not free the Board of Commerce from the control of the commission. In conversation with me he especially dwelt upon the fact that by an amendment to the Civil Service Act which became law on the 10th of November, 1919, all boards and commissions of a permanent character carrying on their functions at Ottawa should be subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, just as every department of the Government, and the Senate and the House of Commons are so subject. Well, the question arose-it arose during my absence-as to whether or not


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I can only tell my hon. friend that probably there never was a more ineffective and useless Act placed upon the statue book in the whole history of this country. If he could point out any occasion when that Act from first to last was of .any real service in restraining profiteering or otherwise I should be

venerable Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) when the Prime Minister returned to his native land after an absence of some time, would rush to him, and after greeting him warmly would say to him, "iSir Robert, I have been interfering with the Board of Commerce"? I do not think that we would expect him to do any such thing.


George Green Foster: I could not say such a thing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat (Mr. 
McMaster) will pardon me if I suggest that he is not much more accurate in his interpretation ot the position with regard to the Board of Commerce under the law than he was in his mythology.
Mr. MeMASTER: I appealed to you for assistance.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Without being appealed to, I might take the liberty while correcting his mythology of setting him right in his facts and his law. But let us get his mythology out of the way first. I was always under the impression that the Juno whom he spoke of was a Juno whom Jupiter saluted as both his sister and his spouse, and that it was another goddess who sprang full of life from the brow of the master of Olympus. But, I am under something more than an impression that when the hon. gentleman tried to get down from Olympus and take hold of the facts in connection with the Board of *Commerce and what he dignifies as the charges of Mr. Murdock, he was just as much out of his reckoning as when he was among the gods and godesses of Olympus.
The hon. gentleman says that he and I and this House had some trouble at one time in making up our minds what the members of this Board of Commerce were, whether they were commissioners; or, as the hon. gentleman says, judges and, therefore, under- my control. It is certainly a new suggestion that because they were judges they would be under the control of the Minister of Justice. The hon. gentleman ought to have given a little thought before he spoke. If there would be one reason in the wide world why they should be absolutely beyond the control of the Minister of Justice or any government it would be found in the fact that they were judges. However, those are just slight inaccuracies.
Let us get down to the question of the situation and what the facts are in regard to the other impossible statements in which the hon. gentleman finds ground for declaring to this House the entire absence of sincerity in the action of the Government. He says the outstanding evidence of that is that the members of the Board of 'Commerce disappeared like some young niggers of his acquaintance.
Mr. MeMASTER:	The niggers of the
old nursery rhyme.	,


Charles Joseph Doherty: They disappeared one
after another, and nothing was done about

it. The hon. gentleman entirely overlooked making any reply to what was pointed out by the Prime Minister, that is, the situation that existed at the time of these resignations, and to state that the existence of the board was not in question in the proceedings that were pending before the Supreme Court. Now it is quite true that that was not the direct question that was put to the Supreme Court, and that at the outset what was submitted was a number A>f questions bearing lupon the powers of the Board of Commerce. And let me point out that this reference to the Supreme Court was made by the Board of Commerce itself,-not because the Government entertained any doubts upon the subject; it was the action of the Board of Commerce doubting its own jurisdiction.
Now, while it is true that the question referred had to do with the powers of the board, the reason why it was suggested that *there was doubt of the powers of the board was that it was suggested that there was doubt of the power of this Parliament to pass that Act. While particular sections were dealt with, the considerations necessary to be gone into to determine whether or not this Parliament had that power were such as would necessarily have a wider bearing than in their application to these particular powers. Now, at the time Mr. Justice Robson, having drafted the questions for submission to the Supreme Court, resigned, these questions were pending before the court. As has been pointed out, we selected the man who certainly was most familiar with the Act, the man who was the most devoted believer in its validity, and who in addition was, as I think will be generally considered, a very capable lawyer, to defend the constitutionality of that legislation. At that time it was expected that a judgment would come within a very brief period. But what happened that brought about delay? When these questions came to be considered by the Supreme Court they reached the conclusion that it was not within the functions of the Board of Commerce to refer to them general questions bearing upon their jurisdiction, the constitutionality of the statute, and the extent of their powers. The Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the only right of the Board of Commerce was to submit a stated case. This
12	p.m. caused the delay in the decision. Because, in order to arrive at a decision, there had to be submitted such a stated case. That case was submitted and resulted but a few weeks ago in an expression of opinion by the judges of the Supreme Court in which opinion they were equally divided. So that we have no opinion of the Supreme Court as to the validity of the legislation in question.
Now, while it is quite true that the question was raised of the validity of particular sections, as I have said, the basis of questioning the validity was the questioning of the power of this Parliament to enact that legislation. Thus a doubt was raised, at the very least, as to the powers of this Parliament in dealing with not only particular sections but with matters concerned with t]je regulation of trade and commerce, and the definition of powers enabling this Parliament to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada. There was also a question whether this legislation could be justified as criminal law. These questions, then, involved a decision of much more far-reaching effect than the determination merely of the validity of particular sections, because they involved the paying down of principles of interpretation of the British North America Act, particularly those of its provisions dealing with powers of this Parliament to legislate upon matters cognate to those dealt with in the statute. That I am right in that expression of opinion is made absolutely clear by the notes in which the judges of the Supreme Court have voiced their opinions. The opinions of the judges differ, but while they necessarily have regard to a particular section, I say without hesitation that they raise questions and determine matters of principle of the most far-reaching kind. I certainly feel-whatever my opinion may be worth-that the legislation is valid, and I have no desire to throw doubt upon any part of it; still, I am forced to concede that if the principles of interpretation laid down by three of those judges are to be accepted it becomes a serious question what was the jurisdiction of this Parliament to pass the major portion of that Act, not merely these particular sections. I will go further and say that they would raise doubts about the powers of this Parliament in connection with matters of trade and commerce which heretofore have not arisen and have not presented themselves to the minds of any persons concerned.
Now, if anything is essential to the effective operation of the Board of 'Commerce it is that in the exercise of their very extensive powers there shall be no doubt about their authority and that their decisions shall be

accepted by those against whom they may be rendered. Surely the hon. member would not contend that it would toe desirable that we should maintain this board in active functioning with practically all its operations subject to attack in the court, and that we should have a large number of cases in which the same questions would be involved, all to be decided?
At the time of the resignation of Mr. Justice Robson, as I have said, the matter was before the Supreme Court. At the time of the resignation of Mr. Murdock, and at the time'of the resignation of Mr. O'Connor- which, by the way, has not yet taken effect -we had had the result which made everything more doubtful than it was before; that is, the Supreme Court of Canada had found it impossible to come not merely to a unanimous but even to a majority conclusion as to the powers conferred by the particular sections that were before it, and had laid down principles of interpretation raising most serious questions not only with regard to those powers but with regard, perhaps, to the hulk of the powe-s conferred in the Act, and going even further than that, in the manner that I have indicated. Would the hon. gentleman suggest that under those circumstances we should be likely to find any competent man willing to undertake the performance of the duties of an office, which might, by reason of an ultimate decision, be so diminished in power-if its powers did not entirely disappear-as to make it, if not non-existent, at all events absolutely valueless? Would he suggest that it would be desirable that we should empower a board to carry on under those circumstances? Does he think that the provocation of such widespread litigation would be conducive to the doing away with any condition of unrest that might arise in the country? I submit to the hon. gentleman's good sense that he must realize, when he comes to look into the facts, that there was only one line of action which could be justified in the light of common sense, and that was, before we proceeded to reconstitute this board which had ceased to exist, that situation being practically simultaneous with the delivering of these opinions, to have first of all the decision of the final court upon the questions that had been raised.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If this board had really become a court of doubt, would it not have been better to put the poor thing out of pain altogether?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps it would have been better to remove the doubt. Would
fMr. Doherty. I
the hon. gentleman suggest that a physician, being called in to a patient and making his diagnosis and saying: "Oh, well, your cure is doubtful," should then say: .."Let us put him out of pain altogether?" A skilful physician would say: "Let us take the means to cure him," and that is what this Government did. This Government said: "Let us not proceed immediately to destroy the patient, but let us just look to see whether we cannot destroy the douibt."


Andrew Ross McMaster: Put it in a hospital on a low diet.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Possibly that might be a wise course, but I would not undertake to determine that precise question. But these resignations having come in as I say, that of Mr. Murdock within the last week and that of Mr. O'Connor not yet in effect, and the Deputy Minister of Justice being in England to present his petition for leave to appeal, the petition having been prepared, it seemed to us that the part of common .sense was to remove the doubt first and to do that as expeditiously as possible. I think, therefore, in so far as the hon. gentleman, in this disappearance of what he is not too complimentarily to them assimilates to the little niggers of the nursery rhyme, finds evidence of insincerity, he is very -much beside the mark. And it is rather a peculiar thing to suggest that, because these two gentlemen resigned, an action absolutely free to them, in that there is evidence of ^he insincerity of this Government. The hon. gentleman imputed to the Prime Minister his having had resort to a tu quoque argument. Let me disabuse him on that subject. High as may be oiur opinion of hon. gentlemen who sit opposite to. us, it is very seldom that their conduct justifies us in saying to them as compared with ourselves:	"You're another;" they very seldom reach the height that entitles them to that compliment; and I saw nothing in the speech of the right hon. leader of the House to indicate that he had suddenly been seized with such admiration of the leader of the Opposition as would have led him to say that he was like unto ourselves. The hon. gentleman quite misapprehended the point of the Prime Minister's reference to the legislation enacted at the time when the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was Minister of Labour. The motive of the reference to it was merely to meet the proud boasts of the former Minister of Labour, the present leader of the Opposition who introduced that legislation into

this debate with what might be described as a triumphant flourish of trumpets. He having done that, and seeing that the fact was that that piece of legislation proved absolutely ineffective for the purpose for which it was enacted-'and I will deal in a moment with the United Shoe Company, which is the outstanding case which demonstrates the futility of the legislation-it was not unnatural that the Prime Minister should have pointed out the fact, not as comparing it with our present legislation, but as indicating the necessity for new legislation upon the subject, and, perhaps, as disabusing the public mind of the effects that might be produced by the vainglorious protestations of the leader of the Opposition.
The hon. gentleman has heard about the United Shoe Company ease, and so have I. I think probably it was the only case that anybody ever heard of in which the much-vaunted Act was brought into play-and I think "brought into play" is a good way to describe it, because it was brought into play and there was held under it an investigation which took a prolonged time, which was presided over by a most distinguished judge, at which numerous witnesses were examined and great expense was incurred1. The judge decided that the particular company had been guilty of violations of the Combines Act. The play was over and then the time came for this Act to work-and it did not work; there was not any consequence to the discovery that had been made, .and everybody found that they were back just where they were before that legislation was enacted at all. That is, that it was open to them to go into the Criminal Courts under the Criminal Code and institute a prosecution against that company, in which prosecution the report of that commission would not be evidence at all but the complainants would have to begin over again at the beginning and prove their case before that court to the satisfaction of a jury, entirely irrespective of the report of the commission. I have some memory of the time when that Act was only a Bill. It had not even come into play then, and while I do not want to speak too positively, if my memory is correct, when that Bill was going through the House, attention was called to what was expected would be the ineffectiveness of its result. That arm lying useless in the arsenal, it was thought wise to provide another which it was expected would be a more effective weapon, and which, I still
have confidence, will be declared by the ultimate court to be a more effective weapon.
The hon. gentleman's one argument in support of the suggestion-or charge, if you please to give it that name^-of Mr. Murdock that there was some interference on the part of the Government with the operations of the board, is that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) could not have told Sir Robert Borden that he had been interfering. I do not know, myself, what is the force of that argument. The hon. gentleman throughout talked about the " charges " of Mr. Murdock. 1 wonder if the hon. gentleman read Mr. Murdock's letter, and I wonder if he would himself think it fair to anybody to walk in before any tribunal and call this, "the indictment that is made against you." Surely he must see that it is practically the opinions, or more correctly the suspicions, of Mr. Murdock. Where does the hon. member find any statement or any act by any member of this Government which constitutes what Mr. Murdock chooses to describe as interference? ISurely the hon. member, as a fair man, will realize that it is utterly impossible to put anybody, even though it may be a Government or the members of a Government, on trial upon such a document as that. The Prime Minister has declared the readiness of this Government to take the responsibility of anything in the nature of a charge of any act or of any omission, of anything that anybody can make, to afford opportunities for the most ample investigation.


Mr. ARTHUR BLISS COPP (Westmorland) :: I desire to say a few words on
this subject, which has been thrown into the arena at the 11th hour of the 11th day and which is of so much importance to the people of this country. My_ right hon. friend who leads the Government (Sir Robert Borden), from what I can gather from his arguments, has apparently taken the ground from the first that the Government was not responsible at all for the appointment of the Board of Commerce, by reason of the fact that the board was established on the recommendation of a committee composed of members from both sides of the House; and he contends that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was rather casting some reflection on hon. gentlemen on this side because for one moment he attempted to criticize the Board of Commerce. As my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) has pointed out, the report of

that committee was very far from being unanimous. There was a minority report from those hon. gentlemen of the committee who came from this side of the House, and we on this side were absolutely opposed to the proposition. However, against our wishes, the report was finally brought down and upon it the Board of Commerce, as my right hon. friend says, was established. On the recommendation of that report the board first saw the light of day. Let me inform my right hon. friend that hon. members on this side, so far as I am aware, unanimously opposed the establishment of the board. So far as I am concerned;, I never had any confidence in the Board1 of Commerce, and I never had the slightest idea that the Government intended it to function to the successful prosecution of the profiteers, and to allow it to stand as the vigilant watch-dog between) the profiteers and the common consumers of the country. I never believed that the Government intended to allow the board to operate freely, and in a very short time we have had the most positive evidence, from a member of the board itself, which shows ns that the board never was allowed to function. Now, who are responsible for this state of affairs if not the Government? They stood1 in the way of the proper activities of the hoard and prevented it from carrying on its operations in the interests of the people. My right hon. friend says that the Government are not responsible. But, Sir, the Board of Commerce was appointed by the Government. They were the creatures of the Government, and when the board was appointed my right hon. friend spoke in the most glowing terms in reference to its personnel. Now what does he say? In regard to the last remaining factor of this magnificent hoard selected by the Government themselves, the Prime Minister says Mr. Murdock becomes excited, gets a little nervous and is not able to concentrate his mind and talk over business matters in a business way. If my right hon. friend has taken that ground to excuse the failure of the Board of Commerce, he still must take responsibility for what they have done or have not done. The main question, however, is this: Was the Board of Commerce a necessity in this country? If so, were the Government responsible for bringing it into existence? If they were, then they must be responsible for the functioning of the board; and lastly, if the board has not operated' successfully, the Government must he held accountable
to the people for the failure of this body to protect the interests of the common people, and to .stand resolutely between the profiteers, the big interests, and the ordinary consumers. I am not here to judge, as my right hon. friend said, between the veracity of Judge Robson and Mr. Murdock or Mr. O'Connor. That is not my duty. 1 have no insinuations to make with regard to these gentlemen. I know only one member of the board personally, and that is Mr. O'Connor, and I do want to pay him this compliment, that I believe that if he had been given a free hand he would have done something in the interests of the consumers. I believe that, from my knowledge of him. But, Mr. Speaker, we have heard! the charges-if we may call them charges,-made by the leader of the Opposition, and we have had an attempted defence by the leader of the Government. We have had another defence-as usual, clear and precise, (as usual), nevertheless unconvincing-by my right hon, friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). But in my opinion, what is more important to the country than any of these arguments is that the actual words of Mr. Murdock should be placed before the people as he has stated his case in the press and! as he has written to the Government. I rose more particularly for the purpose of embalming on the records of the House and placing on Hansard the exact text of his letter. I have it here before me, and I have no desire to take up the time of the House, if this letter, as is done in the case of other documents of importance, is allowed, by the unanimous consent of the House, to go on the record without the necessity of my reading it. If hon. members will not give that consent I propose to read it in order that it may appear on Hansard.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Put it on, put it on.


Mr. OOPP:: I am glad that my hon. friend agrees to this suggestion, because I have no desire to read the letter at this late hour.
An lion. MEMBER: You might as well read it.


Mr. BOYS:: No, spare us, please.


Arthur Bliss Copp: If my hon. friend wants to be spared he ought to take care not to have such things as this happen. If hon. members do not agree to let the letter go on Hansard without my reading it


William Alves Boys: We have read it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I can read it again for you if you want me to.


Samuel William Jacobs: Your motion is carried.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will not have it carried while they are dissatisfied.


William Alves Boys: We are consenting.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Well, as it is agreed by the House that the letter may appear on Hansard, I shall not make the running comments which I was prepared to make had I read it. Ini so far as I have been able to gather from the letter it seems that the board was hampered by reason of Judge Robson's friendship with the profiteers. He did not want to interfere with the big interests, who he knew were wards of the Government and always have been.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Will this last much longer?


Arthur Bliss Copp: I will continue if you want me to. Let me say to my hon. friend that he is not going to hurry this matter through by sitting back and making sneering remarks at me or other members on this side.


Arthur Meighen: Come to the point, man.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Well, will you kindly keep still and allow me to come to the point?


Arthur Meighen: I certainly will if you come to the point.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Well, keep still.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think it is competent for hon. members to bandy words across the floor.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Mr. Speaker, you might call the minister to order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must remind hon. gentlemen that they must address their remarks to the Chair.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I addressed the Chair, Mr. Speaker; my hon. friend was addressing me. To continue, I say that the Chairman of the Board of Commerce was hampered by being mixed up with and interested in the big interests of the country. Therefore, he could not act properly as chairman, is the charge contained in Mr. Murdock's letter as follows:
Text of Mr. Murdock's Resignation.
The text of Mr. Murdock's resignation, dated June 24. and addressed to the prime minister is as follows:
"Supplementing my letters of June 17th and 18th and our brief discussions of Board of Commerce Questions June 17th. 21st and 23rd, I hereby resign my position as a member of the Board of Commerce of Canada, to take effect this date.	,
"My understanding of your position, as gathered from conferences with you and from the fact that no appointments have been made, is that it is not the intention to complete the personnel of the board by appointment at this time nor until the Privy Oo-unjci'l has passed upon the status of the act under which the board works. This would appear to me inconsiderate of the rights of the consumers of Canada. There is much work to be done that the board can do with the assistance of a properly chosen and sufficient staff and with the sympathetic co-operation of the government, which the board has not heretofore had. If the board is not to be permitted to do the many things waiting to be done in preventing profiteering and regulating combines against the public interest it would, as stated in my letters of June 17th and 18th, appear to be improper that I should merely draw salary. We have been handicapped for months without a chairman and a proper staff and I am not going to be a party to making a joke of the law with one commissioner alone on the board without quorum authority. The people of Canada expect service for salary, even although your cabinet do not.
"The reasons for my resignation given in this form (which I appreciate, as you and others will, as unusual, in fact possibly unheard of) can be summed up as briefly as possible, and yet at considerable length, as follows:
"I am convinced-
"1st-That the majority of the cabinet, of which you are the honored leader, are not and have never been in sympathy with the provisions and intent of the Board of Commerce Act and of the Combines and Fair Prices Act;
"2nd-That your advisers only recommended to parliament the passage of those acts as the result of temporary alarm incident to the Winnipeg strike and other strenuous demonstrations when the people demanded some means of controlling profiteers:
"3rd-That as soon as the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act were made law by the Parliament of Canada honourable gentlemen prominent in the councils of Canada and members of your cabinet at once began to undertake to minimize, to as great an extent as possible, what they believed to be the unnecessary and unfair provisions of these two Acts when applied to the businesses of those for whom these honourable gentlemen no doubt had first regard;
"4th-That the chairman appointed by your government to the Board of Commerce was regarded by certain interests as being safe and sane in conserving to Canadian manufacturers and other large financial and business interests the generally unrestricted leeway heretofore enjoyed by such interests in the taking of profits, determined alone by the so-called market price and governed by supply and demand, and that he was in full sympathy with high prices and against low prices as he stated in his letter to Sir George Foster of February 23 ;
"5th-That during the one hundred and forty-five days that I was associated with the chairman as member of this board he spent more time in W innipeg or en route to or returning from Winnipeg in looking after his private affairs than he did in looking after Board of 'Commerce matters, and that even during the few days, December 8th to 12th, which the entire board spent in Winnipeg, he was engaged in his private affairs, while the remainder of the board held hearings of the court alone;
"6th-That when Mr. J. B. Hugg, representing the Crescent Creamery Company, Limited,

Winnipeg, .felt that he could write, under date of February 18th, 1920, to the then chairman of this board a letter submitting a copy of the Crescent Creamery Company's factum for use before the Supreme Court of Canada in opposition to the case that had been presented by the Board of Commerce to define its status, saying:
" 'Hon. H. A. Robson, K.C., Victoria Chambers, Ottawa, Ontario.
" 'Re :	Crescent Creamery Co., Ltd.
" 'Dear Judge:
" 'I enclose a copy of my factum. This has been revised by Mr. Isaac Campbell. I have sent three copies to Mr. Greene, one for the use of the printer, one to be shown to Geoffrion and the other to be shown to Tilley. I have asked Greene to endeavor to see them when they are in Ottawa or to communicate with them, and if it is possible to have such revisions as they suggest made in the proof when he receives it. I have also told Greene that I have sent a copy to Mr. Osborne, a friend of mine, and that I have asked Mr. Osborne to make any revisions he thinks fit and to immediately communicate them to Mr. Greene for insertion in the proof. My idea is that you, if you have time, will make such revisions as you think fit, if you can graft revisions on to what I have done, and then you will hand your revised copy to Osborne to hand to Greene so that you will not appear to have any connection with the revised proof. Perhaps this procedure is unnecessarily roundabout and if so you can of course give your revisions to Greene direct.'-a state of affairs was disclosed which destroyed whatever usefulness the chairman might up to that moment have had;
"7th-That the chairman's two explanations of the transaction, first, that it was to be explained by the fact that Mr. Hugg had formerly been in his office and that they were, therefore, on very close relations with each other, and secondly, that it was 'an unwarranted impertinence by Mr. Hugg, were not sufficient to reinstate him so far as usefulness was concerned.
"8th-That when the former chairman on February 23rd wrote his resignation as a member of the Board of Commerce, promptly after he discovered that I had seen the letter written to him by J. B. Hugg, representing the Crescent Creamery 'Company of Winnipeg, he then knew that he would be regarded as disloyal to the Board of Commerce and to the consumers of Canada;
"9th-That the people of Canada should have had this and other information contained in the documents sent to the Right Hon. Sir George Foster on March 3rd last;
"10th-That during the entire term of service in which he and I were together connected with the board (in which time it had been impossible to ever get any reasonable co-operative understandings or attention in the matters before the board) nothing was done which could in any way affect the business and financial interests which, in hie judgment, should be protected from encroachments upon or interference by the Board of Commerce of Canada;
" 11th-That the general view-points and desires of the former chairman were well known by various honourable members connected with your cabinet, and especially by the Honourable Mr. Calder;
"12th-That many of the honourable gentlemen composing your cabinet saw in the former chairman's resignation an opportunity almost beyond their expectations to minimize the activities of the Board of Commerce and to prepare for its demise, and that several of them

repeatedly undertook to thwart the board's desired activities by quiet and hidden restrictive opposition since that time ;
"13th-That the Civil Service commission has been in the past few months in its relations to the Board of Commerce acting under suggestion, as nothing else can possibly explain the series of handicaps, delays, perversions, and misrepresentations that the Board of Commerce has been confronted with in trying to secure the assistance it requires;
"14th-That on the 28th day of January, 1920, when I this board issued a declaration challenging the right of the cabinet to interfere on behalf of the textile manufacturers in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association (they having made representations to the government that it would; cost $1,500,000 to prepare the data asked for by a questionnaire of this board and that it would take weeks to so prepare) certain of your honourable colleagues were prepared to concede the claim made by the textile manufacturers and relieve them from the necessity of complying with this board's requests for information, and that only the public challenge to your cabinet placed in the newspapers by the Board of Commerce prevented the textile firms from being relieved of the requests for data made by this board ;
"15th-That later records show that the textile manufacturers had ample reason to struggle desperately to prevent the true facts from being known to this board, and that, if this board could have secured the assistance desired, a statement of the facts and figures disclosed, followed by an order as the result of the analysis of the statements of affairs sent to this board, would have startled and incensed the Canadian public beyond anything that has developed in recent months. This information is still due to the Canadian people when your cabinet renders the ordinary and reasonable assistance necessary to present it;
" 16th-That reasonable government co-operation would have made before now, and would even now make, the Board of Commerce splendidly successful in controlling the only too prevalent practices of profiteering and in wringing the water and unfair competition methods out of various combines in Canada.
Body Is Necessary.
"From What I have seen since coming to the board I am more than ever convinced of the necessity of suioh a body as the Board of Commerce. But it is absurd to hope for any effective action by a body which is denied technical assistance. In the United [DOT] States there is a Federal Trade Cbmmission doing work of the greatest 'importance. Without its staff of about 500 its usefulness would1 disappear. The Board of Commerce needs no staff of 500, but it does need a reasonable staff that it can depend is not sent to it by the interests the board proposes to investigate.
"A Board of Commerce is necessary in my judgment for the following reasons :
"(a) Business men living together under the protection of the tariff have got to know each other so well that price-fixing agreements, and all sorts of agreements and arrangements, are the rule rather than the exception. The board has already on file evidence in some scores of oases of such agreements^ Not all of these are reasonable or proper. It should not be left to the unfettered will of the businesses interested to fix prices on necessaries of life. A board of commerce is needed here.


[Stage Direction]
"(b) Coantbijniee whidh hiave fastemed them-seLvee on the paxwi'uiction and distribution of certain essential articles of food, snah as canned fruits, have introduced systems of merchandising which atre injurious to trade and the consumer iand prevent fair competition. A body is required with power to supervise such concerns and prohibit unfair practices.
"(ic) The board has discovered that unfair and excessive profits are being taken by certain textile manufacturers!, cement companies and other large 'Concerns. It is in the public interest that these investigations thus begun be not stopped ait this point, but be continued by a properly qualified Board of Commerce,
"(id) There i;s reason to believe that sugar is not the only commodity in which speculation to the detriment of the public has taken place. With a proper staff a Board of Commerce can undertake to check or 'largely reduce speculation in inieoessaries of life.
"(e) Without a Board of Commerce the public has no organization to watch and protect Its interest®; while on the other side there is the most complete organization and cross-organization ; manufacturers' associations, wholesale associations, retail associations, packers' associations, and hundreds of other associations. The public, unorganized as the sands by the sea, requires a protector against the super-organization of modem businiesst
"In connection with your suggestion that I continue	as a commissioner of the
Board of Commerce until the decision of the Privy Council, I feed that the people need and are entitled to some result, now. The light should be let in. I believe your cabinet will devise some mean® to prevent -the Board of Commerce from functioning even should the Privy Council give a favorable decision. My conscience will not permit me t'o become a high-sallaried time-server.
"With the greatest personal respect for you, I apologize for handing copy of this to the press at the same time it is sent 'to you. I do so as the iresuiit of experience and to ensure that the public shall know the facts.
"Will you permit me to add that in my judgment 'the present position of the Board of Commerce is the result of your unfortunate illness and necessary absence from Canada almost ever since the board was formed. The board during your absence fell under unfortunate influences. Its history would have been quite different if you had been here to care, as you personally have always cared, for its success."
Mr. O'Connor's statement was that the hoard was interfered with by the Civil Service Commission, another creature of the Government, and that therefore it could not function properly.
Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think it is within the province of an hon. member to refer to a member of this board, which is practically a court of record, as being a creature of the Government. Such a personal reflection upon a member of the board is entirely out or order.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What board do you refer to? 285


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I understood' the hon. member to refer to one of the particular members of the board as being a "creature of the Government."
Mr. -COPP: I said nothing of the kind; you misunderstood me.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It may be so. I hope it is so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not desire to say an unkind word against the board because I do not know any of its members except Mr. O'Connor. I was however referring to the letter written by Mr. Murdock and to the charge which he made, that the Board of Commerce could not function because of the interference of the members of the Government. These are the reasons given by Mr. Murdock for the inability of the Board of Commerce to properly carry out the intentions for which it was created.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Murdock .and O'Oorunor the opportunity to substantiate the statements that have been made.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When listening to the Prime Minister (I gathered that he rather made light of the very serious charges contained in Mr. Murdock's IetteT. First of all let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this board was heralded, a year or so ago, as being the tribunal where the common people would findl justice. When it was. created I remember that very severe criticism was passed toy several members of this House upon the measure. However, the Government, especially the Minister of the Interior (Mr. .Meighen) and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nicholson, Algoma) who has just taken his seat who presided, over the Committee which recommended the appointment of that board, defended with great heat first the creation of the board itself, and then the appointments that were made. The evil which this board was supposed to .cure was then very seriousi, tout, Mr. Speaker, one can. say without any exaggeration that far from being abated this evil has grown and grown more serious since that time. It is a fact that to-day the high cost of living is the cause of great unrest from one end of the country to the other. If you pick up the press and read its columns you will find that there is a unanimous cry of despair throughout the country; that the cost of living is soaring, and soaring higher, every day; tout that no remedy for the cure of the evil is found. The Government appointed that board in order to placate public opinion; and we were told that toy the appointment of 'the gentlemen who composed it profiteers would be called to reason and severe punishment would be meted out to those who were exploiting the consumers. It has been evident, Mr. -Speaker, from the first sittings of the hoard, and from what has since happened that the appointment of the board was simple camouflage. Of this, we have had the clear evidence by the revelations which have been made by Mr. Murdock. I am surprised, that the Prime Minister should treat with such levity the revelations made . by Mr. Murdock. Who appointed Mr. Murdock? He was not appointed! by any of the hon. gentlemen sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Murdock was especially selected by the Government as a fit and proper person to sit on that board. I suppose he had to take the oath when acting in that capacity. Before assuming his duties, before hearing evidence, before rendering judgment, I suppose he was under oath. I claim,

Sir, that the letter which he has written constitutes the most severe and) grievous charge that has ever been brought against the Government. Mr. Murdock, after having sat on that board since its inception in order to- cure the evils that the people are complaining of, throws up the sponge at last, and in. his letter of resignation .he declares what in my judgment seems to be only too true. He. states under his signature that the board has been handicapped for months without a chairman and without a proper staff; that the majority of the Government are not now, and never have been, in sympathy with the provisions and intent of the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and' Fair Prices Act. Once more I say that I do not understand the way this very serious charge has been, treated! by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Murdock states further that as .soon as the Act in question became law members of the Cabinet at once began to minimize the provisions of these Acts so far as they related to certain businesses. Again I say this is a very serious charge against the honour and dignity of the Crown. The members of the Cabinet are representing the Crown and administering for the Crown, and when one of their appointees, the member of such an important tribunal as the Board of Commerce, makes under his signature such a statement I say that that is the most serious charge that can be brought against a minister of the Crown.
I do not know Mr. Justice Robson personally, and I would not accept on his authority the grave charges that are contained in Mr. Murdock's letter. But, Sir, I say that it is in the public interest that they should he investigated at the instigation of the Government. Mr. Justice Robson was appointed by the Government to a very high position as Chairman of that board, besides he is a judge, and all judges should be, like Caesar's wife, above suspicion.
I say that not only do these charges reflect against the members of the Cabinet, who were minimizing the provisions of the Act as they related to certain businesses, but that a judge should be accused of tampering with justice is such a serious matter that the Government should at once probe it. The people of this Dominion should not be under the impression that the sacred cause of justice has been desecrated and villified.
Without going into the Crescent Creamery Company incident, there is no question that the bald facts which have been placed

before the people in connection with it are very serious. It is all very well for Mt. Hugg to deny that he intended to influence Mr. Justice Eobson. It is all very well for Mr. Justice Eobson to say that this letter was not intended to be read by him. But, Sir, the public will not accept such explanations until it is proven clearly and above board that he was not actually influenced. I do not know Mr. Justice Eobson. I do not say that he was guilty, but I say that Mr. Murdock's letter is a very serious indictment and that it is the duty of the Department of Justice to see to it that he *clears his reputation.
Sir, there is something else which is very serious too, and which shows that the whole question is not so clear as the right hon. gentleman said it was a moment ago. It is the fact that days and weeks ago notices of motion were put on the Order Paper to obtain from the Government the production of the correspondence before the Parliament of Canada. It is the undoubted right of the Commons, as representing the people of Canada, that all the correspondence, all the evidence, all the facts shall be laid on the Table in order that a proper investigation shall be had. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) is not in his seat. . He was here at the beginning of this debate and possibly when he saw that the right hon. gentleman attached so little importance to the charges made by Mr. Murdock, he thought that he might just as well vacate the Chamber. I do not care, and I have never cared, to attack an hon. member in his absence. But I say, Sir, that the right hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce owes an explanation to the members of this House and to the people of Canada for the petty answer he gave a few days ago,-that it was not in the public interest that that correspondence should be laid on the Table of the House. It shows that our parliamentary institutions have ceased to be what they have always been from time immemorial. Since when in a British Dominion has a minister of the Crown deliberately refused when notice of motion is given to lay on the Table of the House correspondence under the shallow pretext that it is not in the interests of the public that such correspondence should be published? Is it not in the interest of the public, Mr. Speaker, that the public should be made aware, through a communication from one of the judges of the tribunal, that the public had been fooled for months? The circumstances in connection
with this matter show that the Government do not feel safe in their position; that they realize that there is something shady about the business, that there is something rotten in the whole matter. Not in the public interest that the correspondence should be laid on' the table of the House? Sir, that is not what the people of Canada think to-day. I know and everybody in this House knows that public opinion in the province of Quebec is just as keen as it is in every other province, but lest I be taken for one who finds his inspiration only in his native province, I shall refer in connection with this matter to public opinion in Ontario. I know that there is a public opinion in the province of Ontario. I have always said that Ontario is still the great historic province in which, after ail, there is a sane and intelligent public opinion. I 1. a.m. shall not, simply because the political party to which I belong has been defeated in Ontario, through causes of which we know, refuse to attribute to that province the designation which it deserves-the great province in which there is a sane and honest public opinion. It takes time to move the elector of Ontario. It takes time to move Old Man Ontario, but, once he knows the culprits and the guilty parties he proceeds in the right direction in dealing with those culprits and guilty parties. For twenty years the Tory party in Ontario, through a campaign of prejudices with which we are familiar, succeeded in wiping out all opposition. It is true that some renegade Liberals played into the hands of that party, but last winter there was a great wave of public opinion and Mr. Drury came on. the crest of that wave. He represents the honest opinion of Ontario; he is the-personification of Old Man Ontario, and' to-morrow Old Man Ontario will rise tO' punish the guilty ministers who have been playing fast and loose with the Board of Commerce Act and other Acts connected with it.
I intimated a moment ago, |Mr. Speaker, that I would cite the opinion af Old Man Ontario with regard to the action of the Minister of Trade and ,Commerce in connection with , this Board of Commerce scandal-because it is nothing less than a scandal. Is there a better type of Tory organ than the Toronto Telegram? I have long known the proprietor and editor of that paper.' He was one of the representatives of the city of Toronto when in 1896 I was


Mr. EOBEET LOENE EICHAEDSON (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot afford to allow an occasion of this kind to pass without expressing my views, even although the hour is very late. When the Board of Commerce was appointed, I am quite sure it met with the general approval of the masses of the people of this country. Profiteering had been running rampant for months, and in my judgment that great strike in Winnipeg was to some extent caused by the spectacle of wholesale profiteering. When I reached Winnipeg during that strike, I found practically unanimous opinion amongst not only the better-informed people -but all classes, that an effort ought to be made, if not to control prices, at least to limit profits. When, as a result of the high cost of living inquiry and of the general feeling throughout the country, it was decided that a Board of Commerce should be appointed, I repeat, there was a general feeling of satisfaction that something was at last to he done.
The question came up-who should constitute the members of the Board of Commerce? The -name of Judge Eobson had been mentioned; in fact, I took the liberty of suggesting his name to members of the Government. The judge had said to me a year or two ago that he would like to be identified with some such work as that which was carried on by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the United States. I had remembered that statement, and I recommended Judge Eobson very strongly for the position of chairman. I stated then,-and I believe the opinion that I expressed will be endorsed by ninety-nine per cent of the

people of Manitoba,-that if you held a plebiscite in that province to find the ideal man, Judge Robson would have been selected. He had been a very successful practitioner at the bar; he had make a record for himself as judge, and when the Public Utilities' Commission was created in Manitoba, he was selected as commissioner. He made an admirable record in the service of the people in that high office. He resigned because of some reason of his own which I shall not state here, and he went back into the practice of law. When this position offered and I discussed it with him, he said at first that he would accept. A week or two later, he declined and gave out that he would not accept the position, but in another week or so he reconsidered his decision and communicated with me stating that he would be willing to accept the position. I took the liberty of mentioning the matter to the authorities, and as a result probably of that as much as anything else, Judge Robson was, appointed to the position. He continued in that office for some months. The work of the Board of Commerce did not seem to be as successful as might have been expected, and finally the judge resigned. J understand the reason he gave for his resignation was that he did not think the Act was a valid one, nor that the powers conferred upon the board by the Act which created it were constitutional. Be that as it may, it is my judgment that a man to whom the country looked as unanimously and as confidently as the country did to Judge Robson, should not have resigned upon that pretext, nor for that reason. If the judge came to the conclusion that the Act was not constitutional and did not confer upon him the necessary powers to make the board as useful as it should be, it was his duty to have iso- stated1 the case to the Government and toi have asked for additional powers. I felt extremely disappointed when the judge threw the Board of Commerce over, retired from Ottawa and went back to Manitoba.
Having taken as deep an interest in the board as I did, I conferred very frequently with the other members of the board, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Murdock, and I may say that I formed a very set opinion that these gentlemen were perfectly sincere and desirous to make a success of the work. I have rarely met a man who seemed' more thoroughly sincere, who took himself more seriously and was mo-re anxious to be of service than Mr. Murdock. I met both him and Mr. O'Connor quite frequently because the control of newsprint had been
placed an the hands of the board!, and for a time I was brought into constant contact with him. I had learned of the Hugg letter; I had also learned that before Judge Robson retired-so these other commissioners informed me-he had made an arrangement with them to resign in a body, and thus put an end to the Board of Commerce. That is -the statement that both these other members of the board made to me. They said that they did not suspect Judge Robson at that time; they thought he was acting with perfect sincerity; but when this letter sent -by J. B. Hugg, K.C., of Winnipeg was found on Judge Robson's desk, they made up their minds that he was trying to betray the board, and consequently they changed their attitude, decided that they would not .resign, but that they would stand loyally by the board.


Samuel William Jacobs: Hang together.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I had frequent intercourse with both these gentlemen, and I could see that they were not satisfied because this correspondence had not been laid on the table of -the House, especially as it furnished an explanation for partial failure to- accomplish as much as was expected. Parliament had called for it; all the circumstances, including the Hugg letter, and the arrangement to secure the resignation of all, had, I understand, been stated in the correspondence, and these two commissioners -were dissatisfied; they seemed unhappy; they got the impression, rightly or wrongly, -that they were not being properly treated. They believed that if Judge Robson had betrayed the board in the manner that they had -suspected and that, to some extent at least, seemed to be revealed by the correspondence-, that correspondence should have been made public, and if Judge Robson had done wrong, he should1 have taken the consequences of his acts. My judgment has always been that the Government made a mistake in not presenting that correspondence to- Parliament. I.t is after all ektremely significant that the judge should have appealed -to the Government that it would be unfair and an injustice to him to 'publish the correspondence. I understand that he represented that these men were at enmity with him; that they were actuated by extreme malice, and that he thought under the circumstances it would be unfair that this correspondence should be made public. I am satisfied that the Government had1 no improper motive in withholding the correspondence. I do not think they had; I

believe they were actuated with the idea that perhaps after all it was not fair to Judge Robson to publish the correspondence. I think they sincerely 'believed that Judge Robson, who enjoyed1 such an enviable reputation for honour and probity, had done nothing in connection with the board inconsistent with that fine reputation. I believe the Government entertained that view sincerely. I do not assert that the Hugg letter which is before us is proof that the judge was guilty of any wrong act, but to say the least it is a suspicious circumstance. The Government certainly had no reason that I could ever see for withholding the publication of the correspondence. I repeat that I believe the Government would have been -well advised to have laid the correspondence promptly upon the Table of Parliament and let Judge Robson take whatever consequences might follow.
Now, I talked quite frequently with Mr. Murdock, and I cannot help thinking that he did the public a service when, in his resignation, he presented the correspondence to the people of Canada. Mr. Murdock sincerely believes, so far as my judgment goes, that Judge Robson has betrayed the board. I believe that was Mr. O'Connor's view also; and they naturally felt that the Government should have made the correspondence public and sustained the board. When Judge Robson resigned, it is true, a reference was being prepared to the Supreme Court. But so far as the public knew,, the constitution of the board was perfectly natural and legal. It was my judgment that, from the public expectation, from the fact -that there was so much to do, and the fact that profiteering was still rampant in the land, the Government would have been well advised to appoint immediately a successor to Judge Robson and let the board proceed as far as it was able to. I believe it is still the Government's intention to do that, and it would be a profound mistake if a new board were not appointed. I believe that two or three- virile, honourable business men of probity can be -secured in this country to continue the work that the Board of Commerce was designed to perform.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Why not appoint Mr. Murdock himself?


Robert Lorne Richardson: So far as my judgment goes, I would say you co-uld not get a better man-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Richardson: [DOT]-as a member of the board. I would not go so far as to say that he ought to be the whole board, but the impression he left on my mind was that he was a perfectly honourable -and sincere man-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Richardson: - who desired sincerely to -serve the people in the position he -held.


Samuel William Jacobs: 
Samuel William Jacobs: Is it fair to the publics that this letter should be suppressed? Is it fair to Mr. Justice Robson? I have the honour of knowing Mr. Justice Robson; I have the honour of reckoning him among my friends; and I feel perfectly confident that he would welcome any investigation that would clear his skirts of this entire affair. Mr. Justice Robson occupied a very high position at the Manitoba Bar. Subsequently he was elevated to the bench and sat on the Court of Appeal for the province of Manitoba. He was then taken from the Court of Appeal and made to fill the position of Chairman of the Public Utility Commission, and finally he was called to this position of Chairman of the Board of Commerce. Now, knowing Judge Robson as I do, I am positive that the Government was doing an injustice to him by attempting
to suppress this correspondence. In his letter of February 23rd-the letter which the Government considers it was not in the public interests to publish-there were two letters-we find this statement, which I shall also later refer to in connection with something I had to say when the board was organized last year. Says Mr. Justice Robsoni:
A profiteering measure to reach the distributing class, should, in my opinion, be local in its character and be administered locally. Federal machinery cannot reach the grievance effectually throughout all Canada. It seems to me further that the Act actually contains a provision which removes the last chance the consumer had to do anything for himself in reducing the cost of living. There never was before the Act anything to prevent a group of consumers from co-operating in -the punch are of necessaries.
M>ark this interference by the Government with the functioning of this board.
They took their chance of being able to buy. Buit a declaration of parliamentary policy crept into the Act, and a manufacturer or a wholesaler -is not bound to sell to classes who were noit accustomed to purchase from such manufacturers and wholesalers. This was designed to head off co-operative movements, which were likely to make progress for the benefit of consumer members and, as I say, restricted a remedy which elsewhere has been of some effect In price Control.
That only backs up what members on this eide of the House had to say when this board was organized last year in the dying days of the .session. We put through this Act on July 4, 1919. We have almost reached the anniversary of it. But 'by a strange and singular circumstance it seems that the Board of Commerce has been made a sort of Cinderella amongst Acts of Parliament. The last thing we think of is the Board of Commerce and we rush things through. During the last few days of the session of 1919 we rushed this Act through notwithstanding protests received from boards of trade. I placed on Hansard last year at page 4553, volume 1, session 1, 1919, this letter from the Montreal Board of Trade:
The Montreal Board of Trade,
Montreal, July 2, 1919.
Deair Sir,-I am directed to ask for your support of this board's protest against the enactment of legislation creating a Board of Commerce during the last few days of the present session of Parliament, and without the public, who are so vitally interested, being afforded an opportunity to consider the provisions of the Government's proposal.
The following telegram was to-day addressed to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, Premier-*
"Montreal Board of Trade .protests most strongly against passage of legislation creating Board of Commerce in closing days of session and without affording the public opportunity

of studying provisions of a measure of such importance. Board urges that Bill he printed and circulated as widely as possible and that consideration thereof by Parliament be deferred till next session."
X am, dear Sir,
Tours truly,
J. Stanley Cook, Assistant Secretary.
S. W. Jacobs, M.P.
These are wise words, but no heed was paid to them by the Prime Minister, or the .Minister of the Interior who had the Bill in hand. The boards of trade said it was impossible to give consideration to this Bill at the twelfth hour and here we have Mr. Justice Robson, who was chairman of the board, saying:
It seems to me further that the Act actually contains a provision which removes the last chance the consumer had to do anything for himself in reducing the cost of living. When Mr. Murdock stated that this Act was designed to thwart the will of the board and of the consuming public X do not think he was very far wrong.


Arthur Meighen: Where does he say that the (Act was so designed?


Samuel William Jacobs: I have been referring to
Mr. Murdock's letter.


Arthur Meighen: Quite so.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Murdock says that, if not specifically, at least in effect. In any event the letter is now in Hansard and my hon. friend no doubt will carefully peruse it before he deals with the question of appointing the commission that I predict will be appointed. Judge Robson says:
A manufacturer or wholesaler is not bound to sell to the classes who were not accustomed to purchase from such manufacturers and wholesalers. This was designed to head off co-operative movements, which were likely to make progress for the benefit of consumer members and, as I say, restricted a remedy which elsewhere has been of some effect in price control.
All the members of the hoard, before they resigned,-and they all resigned,-agreed that this board was utterly useless and could not function because of inherent defects in the Act under which it carried on. It was born with the germs of death. Surely the Government is not serious in its statement that these charges made by Mr. Murdock are of such a vague and general character as not to deserve recognition at the bands of the Government? I rather fancy that the heavy work we have been through for the last two or three days in our effort to prorogue has probably dulled the intellect and wits of the Government and made them 'believe that what we are con-

sidering is a matter of no consequence at all and can be passed off by the Prim3 Minister with a joke as he attempted this evening.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. gentleman 'be good enough to point out the charge specifically that he says creates a scandal in so far as the Government is concerned?


Samuel William Jacobs: I am surprised that my
-hon. friend should ask a question of that kind. The first scandal that I referred to when I rose was the scandal that the Government suppressed a letter of -prime importance to the public in which the honour and integrity of the president of this board is attacked. That is a scandal that ought to be investigated by the Government. The charge has been made by two members of the Board of Commerce that a third member of the board had betrayed the trust that was reposed in him and the Government never thought it was in the interest of the public that the public should know about this. Does the minister not believe that should be investigated. The conduct of Judge Robson in this matter is another thing that should be investigated.


Arthur Meighen: That is one thing. The wisdom or unwisdom of not bringing down this letter under the circumstances may be a question affecting the Government's judgment but I do not think the hon. gentleman would say that it is a scandal.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose the Government is so far gone that no matter what they do it would not be considered a scandal. They axe in such a moribund condition that they care not.


Arthur Meighen: We will see about that.


Samuel William Jacobs: Has the hon. gentleman
read Mr. Murdock's letter containing a statement to the effect that the Board of Commerce could not function because of the interference of the Government, and does the hon. gentleman say that should not form the subject of an investigation?


Arthur Meighen: That may be, but what is that which constitutes a scandal, assuming that it is true?


Samuel William Jacobs: The scandal is that the
Government prevented the board from carrying out the object for which it was formed. That is found in Mr. Murdock's letter, a man who is given a very good character to-night by the Prime Minister, who says that he is a man of violent prejudices, but an honest man of fair judg-

*ment and altogether quite a proper man to be placed on a board of this kind. Take the letter of Mr. Murdock, read it carefully and see whether Mr. Murdock charges any person with scandal or otherwise. He says it is impossible for the hoard to function because of the interference of members of the Government. Later on he says:
That later records show that the textile manufacturers had ample reason to struggle desperately to prevent the true facts from being known to this board, and that, if this board could have secured the assistance desired, a statement of the facts and figures disclosed, followed by an order as the result of the analysis of the statements of affairs sent to this board, would have startled and incensed the Canadian public beyond anything that has developed in recent months.
Is that a scandal or does Ithe charge made by Mr. Murdock deserve to be investigated? That is only one of a great many paragraphs in his letter.


Arthur Meighen: What aJbout the charges in regard to the textile trade?


Samuel William Jacobs: Surely the minister does
not want me to go into the entire question. He knows as well as I do that the textile people were asked to render, or give, a statement to the board in order that the board could find out something about their business. They came here and were represented, if I am not mistaken, by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. They said it would cost $1,500,000 to obtain that information and, as I understand it, the textile people were absolved from- giving any information whatever to the board. Of course that is only one of the matters referred to.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
does not know what he is talking about.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps not.


Arthur Meighen: The Government never interfered in any way at all.


Samuel William Jacobs: I certainly did not expect that the minister would admit that they did.


Arthur Meighen: You said that they did.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have nothing further,
Mr. Speaker, to say on this question. I said before, and I repeat the statement: this is a matter that will certainly receive some consideration at the hands of the Government before many days have passed.


Arthur Meighen: I might venture the
suggestion, first, that if hon, gentlemen have no better control of their language than they have shown to-night they deserve a
little attention at the handls of the Government themselves.


Samuel William Jacobs: Would the minister permit me to quote the following in answer to a question that he put during my remarks? It is paragraph 3 of Mr. Murdock's letter of resignation:
That as soon as the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act were made law by the Parliament of Canada honourable gentlemen prominent in the councils of Canada and members of your cabinet at once began to undertake to minimize, to as great an extent as possible, what they believed to be the unnecessary and unfair provisions of these two acts when applied to the businesses of those for whom these honorable gentlemen no doubt had first regard ;


Arthur Meighen: What does that mean?


Samuel William Jacobs: It is one of the morsels
I wished to quote.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry to take up time at this late hour. I did not intend to do so, and had it not been for the most extravagant language of the hon. member who has just sat down, excelled only by the still more reckless words of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) I would not have done so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Based1 on Mr. Murdock's charge.


Arthur Meighen: Based on Mr. Murdock's charges?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, your appointee.


Arthur Meighen: Both hon. members have referred to the contents of this letter as constituting the gravest charges ever levelled at the heads of public men, or at the head of a government, and each has vied with the other in describing them as scandals of the most awful type. Well, I do not know how any one could listen to the Prime Minister and imagine for a minute that the Government were trying to fight shy of an investigation. Let me say at the outset that the Government are only anxious to get hold of something that we could possibly hang an investigation on; and if the hon. member were commissioned by the Government to dig it out as a lawyer, I think he would have one of the most difficult tasks he ever addressed himself to. I will tell him why I think so. When in the course of his address I asked him repeatedly to put his finger on something that was even a charge or a scandal did he not feel himself hampered by the paucity of his information?


Samuel William Jacobs: No, I quoted' from the
Murdock letter.


Arthur Meighen: Let us just get after this matter and/ see what there is in, it. I will have something to say about an investigation -when I am through. This is the first scandal, this is one of the reasons why Mr. Murdocir resigned:
That the majority of the cabinet, of which you are the honored leader, are not and have never been in sympathy with the provisions and intent of the Board of Commerce Act and of the Combines and Fair Prices Act;
That is scandal No. 1.
Mr. LEMIEUX Mr. MEIGHEN
Mr. LEMIIEUX of had faith?
Is that not a charge? That is the first one. Is not that a charge


Arthur Meighen: It is said that we are not in sympathy with the provisions of the Act and the hon. member has said he is not in sympathy with it, so he is equally in default.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But it is your action.


Samuel William Jacobs: I have not changed my
mind, if you have.


Arthur Meighen: This Act was never opposed by any of the Opposition except the hon. member himself. But is it a scandal that men do not believe that an Act is a good Act? As a matter of fact, it is not true. The Act would not be on the statute books if the majority of the Government did not believe in it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is easy to camouflage.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says it is camouflage.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I say it is easy to camouflage.


Arthur Meighen: Well it is the law, so what is the difference? What is the difference whether we -believe in it or not? It is there, it is the law of the land.


Jacques Bureau: Whether you believe in it or not?
Mr. M-cMASTER: May I interject a question? Would it be the part of -sincerity for the Government to place on the statute books a statute that they -did not think would serve a useful purpose?


Arthur Meighen: No, but they did think so and it is their Act and it does not make any difference now whether they think so or not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Murdock says you hampered the Board all the time.


Arthur Meighen: We will get to that point later. In the meantime we are analysing scandal No. 1, that the majority of the Government that put that Act on the statute book did not believe in it when, out of the entire House, all supported the legislation except the hon. member himself.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I protested against it.


Arthur Meighen: Well if the hon.
member will show me his name in the Hansard as calling for a division I will accept his statement. I do not think that even a single clause passed on division. But that is not the point. The fact that-


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: May I interject?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The (minister claims
that I did not -call -for a division. It is not necessary for any hon. member to -call for a division in order to place himself on record as -being opposed to a measure, is it?


Arthur Meighen: Well, he is not very much in opposition if he does not. That is camouflage, I am afraid. The Government put the statute there and that being so it does not matter what their opinion is about it. As a matter of fact the Government -supported that measure through the House, and believed in it or it would not have done so. I do not think it is a very worthy attempt on the part of any hon: member, or in accordance with the rules of Parliament, to question the good faith of another hon. member.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Oh, Oh.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member does not understand that. Perhaps he does not understand good faith.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I would not come to you for instruction on that point.


Arthur Meighen: But is it a scandal that an hon. member of this House has an opinion as to the efficacy of the law? Even supposing what is said -by Mr. Murdock is true it would only be a thing that hon. members opposite get up and say they are guilty of. Are we to (have an investigation to find what the opinions of members- o-f the Government are about a law? Should we appoint a Committee of Parliament? Does any hon. member suggest that we should have a committee to investigate what the opinion of a member of this House i-s about the law of the land?

Now that is scandal No. 1. Here is scandal No. 2:
" 2. That your advisers only recommended to iparliament the passage of those acts as the result of temporary alarm incident to the Winnipeg strike and other strenuous demonstrations when the people demanded some means of controlling profiteers."
In other words he says the reason we introduced the legislation was because of alarm on account of the Winnipeg strike. Well, suppose it was? It was not,-but suppose it was? It is pretty hard for me to see why that is a reason for resigning on the part of a member of the Commission who accepted the law after it was passed and became a member of the Board; and it is still more difficult for any man that is out of bedlam to understand how it constitutes a scandal. Really the thing is beyond argument. Should we have an investigation to find out whether or not the Government introduced a measure because it was alarmed on account of the Winnipeg strike?


Samuel William Jacobs: Read a little further.


Arthur Meighen: I will take up one thing at a time. I asked the hon. gentleman to tell me what there was in this that constituted a scandal. I suppose we should appoint a Committee of Parliament to find out whether the Government passed the Act because they were frightened by the Winnipeg strike. Well, we did not act as though we were frightened on the occasion of that strike.
This is scandal No. 3:
That as soon as the Board of Commerce Act and the Combines and Fair Prices Act were made law by the Parliament of Canada, hon. gentlemen prominent in the councils of Canada-
I do not know whom he refers to. Does he refer to me?
-and members of your Cabinet at once began to undertake to minimize, to as gTeat an extent as possible, what they believed to be the unnecessary and unfair provisions of these two Acts.
Suppose they minimized them, how would they minimize them? What does he mean?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He	knows what he
means.	.


Arthur Meighen: Do you?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr.	Murdock knows
what he means.	i


Arthur Meighen: That does not help me. How do you minimize a statute? I do not know. Are we to have an investigation to decide whether Sir Henry Drayton minimized some clause of the Combines and Fair Prices Act? Is that really suggested?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend takes
a poor illustration. When Sir Henry Drayton was president of the Railway Commission he never acted as Mr. Murdock says Judge Robson acted.


Arthur Meighen: That may be. Judge
Robson may have done very wrong things. But is that a reason for charging something against the Government?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The common people
will know what Mr. Murdock means.


Arthur Meighen: Here is the sentence:
Member of your Cabinet-
I do not know whom he refers to. We [DOT]will say the Minister of Marine (Mr. Bal-lantyne) minimized some clause of the Act. But what clause? Now, scandal No. 4.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you reading the
whole charge?


Arthur Meighen: I am doing so pretty
fast. But there is no scandal here as I have always understood scandal both under the late Government and all other governments. This is scandal No. 4, that we have got to investigate:
That the chairman appointed by your Government to the Board of Commerce was regarded by certain interests as being safe and sane in conserving to Canadian manufacturers and other large financial and business interests the generally unrestricted leeway heretofore enjoyed by such interests in the taking of profits, determined alone by the so-called market price and governed by supply and demand, and that he was in full sympathy with "high prices and against low prices" as he stated in his letter to Sir George Foster of February 23.
That the chairman whom we appointed was regarded by certain interests as being safe and sane in conserving to Canadian manufacturers and others high prices. We are asked, in order that the honour of this Government may not be stained, to appoint a commission to investigate whether the chairmian was regarded by certain interests as being .safe and sane.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The people will understand what Mr. Murdock means.


Arthur Meighen: I understand what he
means there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That Judge Robson was a creature of the Government.


Arthur Meighen: I am trying to discover how that affects the honour of this Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is no difficulty
in regard to that.


Arthur Meighen: Why is the hon. member so uneasy?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The hon. member for Maisonneuve has spoken, and the Minister of the Interior should not be interrupted.


Arthur Meighen: Supposing it is true that some interests regarded Judge Robson as safe and sane, and that he believed in high prices, what intellect on earth would regard that as a charge against the Government or any member of the Government? Or would it be a charge even against Judge Robson? But above all things why is that a reason for Mr. Murdock resigning four months after Judge Robson left the board? I am not. impugning Mr. Murdock's honesty. I scarcely know him; I do not think I have spoken to him more than once or twice. I cannot think of his being anything but honest after the encomiums passed on him to-night, nor can I doubt Judge Robson's honour after the great opinion held of him by the hon. member from Montreal. Does the hon. member want to have a board of judges appointed to find out whether somebody else .regarded Judge Robson as safe and sane in order that that " scandal " may be forever removed from the Parliament and the Government of Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Murdock says that Judge Robson was in full sympathy with high prices and. against low prices.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. It is just suggested that probably Mr. Jacobs himself considered Judge Robson safe and sane.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry. It is just suggested that the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Jacobs) regarded Judge Robson as safe and sane. I do not know what Mr. Murdock's intention was but this conglomeration of words does not constitute anything that you could put your hand on as a charge. I only wish he would be specific.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question? Will he tell the House Why the Government refused to

publish the Robson letter, although Judge Robson gave them permission to publish it? Why did they consider that it was not in the public interest to publish it?


Arthur Meighen: I will guarantee that when I get to that question of his the hon. member will wonder why he ever referred to the subject at all. But please do not try to get me off this long list of beatified scandals. I am going to try to cover them first. This is the fifth scandal against the Government.
That during the one hundred and forty-five days that I was associated with the chairman as member of this board he spent more time in Winnipeg or en route to or returning from Winnipeg in looking after his private affairs than he did in looking after Board of Commerce matters, and that even during the few days, December 8 to 12, which the entire board spent in Winnipeg, he was engaged in his private affairs while the remainder of the Board held hearings of the court alone.
Is not that really an awful thing? Just think of a Government that dares toi hold office in the face of this grievous- charge: That the chairman of the board, while he was in Winnipeg, spent more time on his private affairs &an he did in looking after the Board of Commerce business. That is Scandal No. 5.
Mr. JACOBS': That is not a scandal.


Arthur Meighen: I knew he would say that. We are through five of the fifteen now. It may not be creditable to Judge Robson if it is true-I do not know whether it is or not-but how can it reflect on the Government?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was "playing the game."


Arthur Meighen: But according to the hon. member from Montreal Judge Robson is incapable of doing anything dishonourable. He is a personal friend of the hon. member. But his friend from Maisonneuve suggests that this was all part of the game he was to play in order to defeat the Commerce Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what Mr. Murdock says.


Arthur Meighen: Does my hon. friend
believe so?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I believe that Mr. Murdock is an honest man.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. This dialogue
may be very interesting, but I must remind hon. members that the member for Mais-soneuve (Mr Lemieux) has spoken. The

Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) has the floor, and we must have some regard for the rules of the House, even though it is two o'clock in the morning.


Leonard Thomas Bland: Will you kindly require
the minister to answer his own questions? He is constantly putting questions to members on this side.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It does not follow that
hon. members who have already spoken should reply when the hon. gentleman on my right does not put questions to them.


Ernest Lapointe: He is a living interrogation point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is entirely out of
order.


Arthur Meighen: You can readily understand my being hungry for information while I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, when I get so little of it from hon. gentlemen when they are on theirs.
This is scandal No. 6 against the Government,-the most grievous scandal that was ever levelled against any Government in the history of the world!
That when Mr J. B. Hugg, representing the *Crescent Creamery Oo. L/td. Winnipeg, felt that he could write under date Feb. 18, 1920, to the then chairman of the Board a letter submitting a copy of the Crescent Creamery Company's factum for use before the Supreme Court of Canada in opposition to the case that had been presented by the Board of Commerce to define its status saying:
Then he quotes the letter, and continues: -a state of affairs was disclosed which destroyed whatever usefulness the chairman might up to that moment have had.
Scandal No. 6 against the Government,- that when Hugg wrote that letter a state of affairs was disclosed which destroyed the usefulness of the chairman and the chairman forthwith resigned. Is that a scandal against the Government? Who committed a scandal?


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. gentleman not think that it should be investigated?


Arthur Meighen: That may be. I am not dealing with that now; I will come to it in a minute. But if it were investigated it would have to be an investigation between Mr. Murdock and Judge Robson. There is no charge, no reflection in the world, against the Government. Are we responsible for Hugg's letters to Judge Robson or for Judge Robson's reply to them? So we have not yet come to any scandal so far as the Government is concerned-at least, that my wit can discern.
Well, we will go on to scandal No. 7:
That the chairman's two explanations of the
transaction, first, that it was to be explained by the fact that Mr. Hugg had formerly been in his office, and that they were, therefore, on very close relations with each other, and, secondly, that it was "an unwarranted impertinence" by Mr. Hugg, were not sufficient to reinstate him so far as usefulness was concerned.
Well, it is too bad that they were not, especially when he resigned. I do not know what Mr. Murdock is driving at. What had that to do with the Government, or what had it to do with his resigning? Why, Judge Robson did all this and Mr. Hugg did all this away back in February, and Judge Robson resigned in February. What has Judge Robson's conduct prior to his resignation in February to do with Mr. Murdock's duty to the board in the month of June? That has always been a mystery to me. It might have been a reason, if Judge Robson were continued in his position after that was revealed,-it might at least have been a colourable reason for his resignation. But Judge Robson having been off the board for four months,-Mr. Murdock resigns because of something he believes Judge Robson did before. Well, it passes my comprehension, limited though it be, to see wnat relation that has to the honour or dishonour of the Government. It would require the imagination of a poet.
Now, here is scandal No. 8:
That when the former chairman on February 23 wrote his resignation as a member of the Board of Commerce promptly after he discovered that I had seen the letter written to him by X B. Hugg, representing the Crescent Creamery Company of Winnipeg, he then knew that he would be regarded as disloyal to the Board of Commerce and to the consumers of Canada.
I suppose we are asked to investigate whether when Judge Robson wrote his letter he knew that he would be regarded as "disloyal to the Board of Commerce and to the consumers of Canada." What is the charge? What is this heinous crime which the Government is alleged to have committed? That Judge Robson when he resigned knew that he would be regarded as disloyal to the Board of Commerce and to the consumers of Canada? Well, even that could not be an accusation against Judge Robson, much less an [DOT] accusation against the Government, and much less still any reason in the world for resigning. What it has to do with his duties to the board in the premises *-well, it passes like something much better,-all understanding.
Now, we come to No. 9:
That the people of Canada should have had this and other information contained in the

documents sent to the Rt. Hon. Sir George Poster on March 3, last.
Now we are at the point; this is the awful indictment-that the people of Canada should have had this letter sooner, and, on that account Mr. Murdock resigned. Well, it was in his power to give the letter to the people of Canada if he wanted to do so. He could have cured this awful evil; why he should, by holding it, make it a ground for his own resignation is more than I can understand. Why should he resign because the Government does not publish something that be himself can publish if he wants to? The hon. member says: "Why did you not publish that letter when Judge Robson permitted you to do so?" But where is his authority for saying that Judge Robson permitted us to do so?


Samuel William Jacobs: I think he said so in his letter.


Arthur Meighen: You think so? I want to tell the hon. member something. The only reason in the world the Government had for not publishing that letter was the personal protest of Judge Robson that it should not be published.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where is that personal protest?


Arthur Meighen: It is in the hands of the Government; that is where it is.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would like to see it.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think there would be any difficulty about seeing it. Anyway, I tell the hon. member that as a fact. What had the Government to fear by publishing this correspondence? What difference did it make to us?


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him why the personal interest of Judge Rob-son should weigh against the public interest in a matter of this kind?


Arthur Meighen: That is another question; but that is not what the hon. member said. He said that Judge Robson permitted its publication and that we did him a personal injustice by not publishing it. I tell him that the reason why we did not publish it was found in Judge Robson's personal protest. Whether or not that was a sufficient reason for our taking the course that we did I will discuss later; I am free to admit that it is a more debatable question. Now, I set out to say that the Government had no concern one way or the other as to the publication of the letter. It did not reflect in any way on the Government. It did

reflect on Judge Robson, whether justly or unjustly is open to question; Judge Robson says one thing and Mr. Murdock says another. It reflected on him, but it did not reflect on us; it did not matter to us whether it was known or not known.


Samuel William Jacobs: Why does my hon. friend consider and why does the Government consider that it was not in the public interest that that letter should be published?


Mr MEIGHEN:: Could the hon. member not see that that was just what I was proceeding to discuss? I stated that it might be debatable whether the reason for the course we took was sufficient, but that view did prevail with the Government and it prevailed' .in the face of the clear fact that the Government had nothing to gain one way or the other and nothing to lose one way or the other. When the letter was laid before the Government Judge Robson took the ground-and Judge Robson is a man who was on the King's Bench of Manitoba, placed there by the Laurier Government; he was a good judge. He has been Public Utilities Commissioner in that province for many years, and has served most honourably and acceptably- Judge Robson took the ground that the letter in question had not been authorized by him. He said, in effect: "The publication of that letter would do me a gross and cruel injustice"-I am not pretending to use the exact words-"That letter is an impertinence on the part of Mr. Hugg. I never had any conversation about it; never expected it; never knew anything about it. That letter was taken from me by dishonourable means. If you publish it you do me an injustice." Now, that was the stand he took.


Samuel William Jacobs: Where does that appear?


Arthur Meighen: I am putting it in my own language; I cannot remember his exact words, but his statement appears in the telegram. These ideas, however, were clearly beneath the words he used; that is the way he felt about it. Mr. Hugg also made a protest. Now, it did not matter what the personal opinion of the Government might have been or of any member of the Government. We did not feel that we had any right to decide the point with reference to Mr. Hugg's letter to Judge Robson. The prevailing opinion was that inasmuch as its publication might do Judge Robson a cruel injustice-he claimed that it was purely personal and should never have been taken from him-the Government

should not make themselves the instrument of its publication. But Mr. Murdock had the privilege of publishing it. In fact, I had no doubt that it would be published. I knew that Mr. Murdock could publish it at any day, and personally I fully expected that he would. It was not with the idea of concealing it that the Government did not publish it, because it was in Mr. Murdock's hands and could be published; but rightly or wrongly we respected Judge Robson's personal protest that its publication at our instance would be a gross injustice to him. Rightly or wrongly, that was why it was done, be the reason sufficient or be it not.
Now, that is a plain and frank statement of the whole situation. It is open t-o debate whether as a matter of judgment we should have recognized Judge Robson's protest and request under the circumstances. A very strong case can at least be made out for the attitude that we took, but whether it was right or wrong, how could it be called a scandal?


Samuel William Jacobs: You suppressed the letter.


Arthur Meighen: We could not suppress it. It was in Mr. Murdock's hands, so there was no possibility of doing that.
Mr. JAjCOBS:	It was asked for in the
House.


Arthur Meighen: Very good, but the
motion passed on the understanding that anything that was considered private or confidential in it would not be produced, and the Government, at the request of Judge Robson, took the ground that it should not be the instrument of producing it. I am free to say that good arguments can be adduced that the better judgment would have been to have brought it down. That argument can be made pretty strongly; but even were the judgment wrong, there is no scandal. It would be at the worst only an error of judgment; there cannot be anything else suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why was the telegram of Judge Robson to the Government requesting that this document be kept confidential not brought down?


Arthur Meighen: It would be said that if the protest were brought down, then, of course, the letter would have to be brought down, because the protest pointed to the letter, and Judge Robson doubtless considered that communication a personal communication. Now that the letter is down, I see no reason in the world why 286
his telegram should not come down. I remember the telegram very well; I have not seen it since.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will it be
brought down in the afternoon?


Arthur Meighen: I think I can promise
that it wil be brought down. It was, if I remember rightly, directed to Sir George Foster, Acting Prime Minister.


Samuel William Jacobs: Will the hon. member permit me to say that his memory as regards telegrams is better than it was last year.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend's remarks are not even pertinent, nor are they clever.
Scandal No. 11 is:
That the general viewpoints and desires of the former chairman-
What they were I do not know.
-were well known by various hon. members connected with your Cabinet and especially by the Hon. Mr. Calder.
That is, they actually knew them, and I suppose we are to investigate whether this terrible, grievous charge is true, that Mr. Calder particularly and other members of the Government actually knew the viewpoints of Judge Robson. It is an awful thing if they did, is it not? Scandal No. 12 is:
That many of the hon. gentlemen composing your Cabinet saw in the former chairman's resignation an opportunity almost beyond their expectations to minimize the activities of the Board of Commerce and to prepare for its demise, and that several of them repeatedly undertook to thwart the board's desired activities by quiet and hidden restrictive opposition since that time.
Quiet and hidden! What would be the method of disproving that? "Quiet and hidden restrictive opposition!" Why, in the first place, there is a law conferring certain powers and imposing certain duties on a boaTd, a law written and planted on the statute books, known to the board when they took office, a law with the operation of which nobody can interfere, a law which they have the courts of the land at their disposal to enforce.
Mr. JACOB'S: Under the law the Governor in Council can prevent the acta of the board becoming effective.


Arthur Meighen: Not a single action of the board wias ever reversed on an appeal. Certainly we ooiuM have adted in that way by sitting in appeal over the judgments of the board, but the fact is undented Wat we



never in a single case modified or reversed a judgment of the hoard. AM the board had to do was to take tlhe law and enforce it. A member of the Government was just as powerless -as any member of the public to interfere, and if there was interference, all the board bad to do was to invoke the process of the law against the interference. Why did they not do that? The Board of Railway Commissioners is in exactly the same position, -and I would like to see any member of the Government or any one else undertake to interfere with them! But what is this "quiet and hidden restrictive opposition?" I presume it means dreaming dreams against them or something of that sort. How would anybody succeed in that? How can you put your hand on that and say what you are going to p-rove and what you are going to disprove? A scandal! Let any bon. member or any one else get np and charge against a member of this Government, any act at all that went to impede the process of that law, and he will not wa-it very long to have tha-t investigation. Let him tell us wih-at the act is. Let Mr. Murdock do it. If no one is prepared to do it, why use this extravagant language? Why this passion for superlatives? Everything that comes up i-s the "greatest," "most terrible" thing ever heard of in a Parliament. We hear th-ait times without number. Why not let us in some way measure our language to the facts?
No. 13 is:
That the Civil Service Commission has been-
Another -scandal against the Government.
-in the past few months in its relations to the Board of Commerce acting under suggestion, as nothing else can possibly explain the series of handicaps, delays, perversions and misrepresentations that the Board of Commerce has been confronted with in trying to secure the assistance it required.


An hon. MEMBER:: Absent treatment.


Arthur Meighen: I -suppose, absent treatment. He says: "Because we do not agree with the Civil Service Commission's decisions and its attitude towards us, because the attitude of that. commission is so very bad, because there are misrepresentations, perversions and handicaps, because of all that there must have been some suggestion," and that is -a scandal. Does the hon. member really think that .does credit to Mr. Murdock? Let him read in the hoard's own report the correspondence between the Civil Service Commission and this board, and I do

not think he will find anything discreditable to the Civil Service Commission in any way. As between the two parties to the argument, he may, perhaps, think the Board of Commerce had the -better of the argument. I understand many think the Civil Service Commission were undoubtedly right throughout; but to say that there were these handicaps, misrepresentations and so on is nothing but a libel against the Civil Service Commission. It has nothing to do with us. What does- he say that we did? If he will charge that any one here sought to influence the Civil Service Commission against the board, and tell us what he did, neither he, nor any hon. member opposite will wait very long for an inquiry to be granted. So th^t is scandal No. 13.
Then scandal No. 14:
That on the 28th day of January, 1920, when this Board issued a declaration challenging the right of the Cabinet-
I will abbreviate that. It is this. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association objected to certain regulations issued by the board in the form of questionnaires that had to be answered, and they appealed to the Governor in Council. Mr. Murdock says that if it had not been for the fact that the board exposed the whole thing in the press, the Government would have granted the appeal, and that is a "scandal."


Samuel William Jacobs: Pretty serious.


Arthur Meighen: Well, the -hon. member is at least a master of irony. A serious scandal that any one should say that if he had not published something in the press, the Government would have done differently from what it did-and he suggests that we ought to appoint a judge to find out whether the members of the Government would have decided differently from the way they did decide. The way we did decide, he says, is all right; but he says: " I have to resign because if I had not exposed the whole thing in the press, yon would have decided otherwise." The thing is puerile. Moreover, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) tells me, this was decided before the matter was in the paper at all.
Scandal No. 15 is:
That later records show that the textile manufacturers-
This is really a gem.	,
*-had ample reason to struggle desperately to prevent the true facts from being known to this Board, and that if this Board could have secured the assistance desired a statement of the facts and figures disclosed, followed by a,n

order as the result of the analysis of the statements of affairs sent to this board would have startled and incensed the Canadian people beyond anything that has developed in recent months.
Or to permit a brief paraphrase; the textile manufacturers-this is a charge against the Government-knew that if the board had all the facts, a state of affairs would have been disclosed that would have startled the Canadian people. He says, we do not know all the facts but I know that if we did know them they would disclose a state of things that would startle the people of Canada and incense them. Well, if he did not know them, why did he not get at them and know them? The whole trouble with Mr. Murdock, the whole trouble with the board -and it is the trouble with every department-was that they had not the right to select just the men they themselves put their fingers on at the salaries they themselves wanted to pay. Every minister would like to do that from his own standpoint; he always feels the restriction. But you cannot have patronage and no patronage, and for the life of me I never could see why we should have no patronage in connection with the Railway Commission and everything else and have patronage in this commission. I never could see how we could come and ask Parliament to make that discrimination. And that is the whole trouble with the commission. They thought that they should have had that right; they wanted it. And if any hon. gentleman in this House thinks that they should have had it, let him move the House to that purpose. If we are going to have a Civil Service Commission it must at least preside, in respect of its duties, over all the permanent service of the Government. However, suppose that principle is wrong; suppose that is bad policy. How does it amount to scandal? Suppose the Government is wrong in its whole Civil Service policy; suppose it is wrong that we should have any Civil Service Commission at all and that the Board of Commerce should have been exempt from the provisions of the'Civil Service Act, does that supposition constitute a scandal? Is that a charge to be investigated by a judge or a committee of this House? Why, it is merely a criticism by Mr. Murdock of the correctness of the Government's policy in regard to the Civil Service.
And so, we have ended these long fifteen detailed scandals and grave charges that constitute, in the words of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), the most fearful indictment ever levelled 286J	'
against a Government, in respect of which, he says, the people of Canada, in our towns and villages and townships, are "hanging their heads in shame." Well, do not hon. members recognize that Parliament is entitled to language that at least a little more nearly comports with the facts of the case?
I have ended what I had to^ say. Let me only add this: I do not think that there are any members of the House who are more anxious that Mr. Murdock should put into concrete form, which a court can actually deal with, anything in the way of an allegation against the conduct of any member of this Administration, than are the sixteen or eighteen members of this) Government. I do apprehend that if he does so he will soon find himself in the position of a member of the Ontario legislature who had several changes of mind after he made the faux pas at a picnic in that province. In fact, I think I could; describe one or two of these misty formulations in no better language than to call them rather diminutive Hicksisms.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
I


[Stage Direction]
Salaries and allowances-$11,199,768.
William Stevens Fielding: Does the minister gravely propose to go on with these Estimates?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I was about to propose that the committee1 rise and report progress. I make that motion now.
Progress reported.
On the order being called: Receiving report Committee of Supply,-The Minister of Finance:


William Stevens Fielding: Does the Government seriously propose to continue business at this hour? I do not think it is reasonable.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think we had better adjourn. I move the adjournment of tha House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What business will be taken up to-day?


Arthur Meighen: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that we were to have a motion passed by unanimous consent that the. House should meet at 11 a.m.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 2.25 a.m. Wednesday.

Wednesday, June 30, 1920.